SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 16 . NUMBER 3 . SEPTEMBER 1962 230 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK 17, N. Y.

ON STUDYING THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY

ON April 13-14 of this year a Conference on the History of Anthropology was held in the office of the Social Sci­ence Research Council. The attendants numbered 33 and included anthropologists, historians, historians of science, sociologists, and a few other interested persons. Papers prepared for the conference were discussed. In this brief paper I should like to tell you about the confer­ence, not so much in terms of its content as in terms of its import. This lies mainly, I think, not in the intrinsic value of what occurred-like most short conferences on areas new to organized research, it was intense, varied, and confused-but in the fact that it did occur. The oc­currence of a formal conference on the history of anthro­pology marks a definite shift that affects the interests and fortunes of all anthropologists.

• The author is Associate Professor of Anthropology and Linguis­tics at the University of California. Berkeley. He was a participant in the Council's Conference on the History of Anthropology. April 13-14. 1962. for which he prepared a paper. "Toward a History of Lin­guistic Anthropology." The present report is a condensation of one presented by the author at the annual meeting of the Kroeber Anthropological Society, held jointly with the Southwestern Anthro­pological Association in Berkeley, on April 19-21. The longer report will be published in Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, No. 26 (1962).

The Council's conference was an outgrowth of the November 1959 Conference on the History of Quantification in the Sciences sponsored by the former Joint Committee on the History of Science (of the Na­tional Research Council and Social Science Research Council), on which a report by Robert K. Merton appeared in Items, March 1960. The 1962 conference was organized by an ad hoc subcommittee consisting of A. Irving Hallowell, University of Pennsylvania (chairman); Robert K. Merton, Columbia University; Harry L. Shapiro. American Museum of Natural History; Richard H. Shryock, American Philosophical So­ciety; Sol Tax, University of Chicago; and C. F. Voegelin. Indiana University, with the staff assistance first of Joseph B. Casagrande and later of Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr. The participants included Harry

by Dell H. Hymes ""

We can be partly gratified by the attention-by being singled out for study by historians of science. It must prove that our claims to be something of a science are being given credence. Yet it means some discomfort too, for we have our own accounts of our origin, nature, and destiny. It may seem at first that the historians of science visit us simply out of sincere interest in these traditions of ours, to be edified by them, as we have been, and to record them for the rest of the world and posterity, lest they be lost. Eventually, however, we may discover that our attentive visitors do not always take our accounts at face value. They move from one campfire to another, and compare notes. We realize that they could hardly become one with us, if they had not undergone the same sort of initiation (field work), been exposed to our ways

Alpert, University of Oregon; Bernard Barber, Barnard College; Joseph B. Casagrande. University of Illinois; Frederica de Laguna, Bryn Mawr College; Fred Eggan, University of Chicago; Raymond Firth, London School of Economics and Political Science; John F. Freeman, American Philosophical Society; David H. French, Reed College; John C. Greene, Iowa State University; Jacob W. Gruber, Temple University; A. Irving Hallowell; Robert Heine-Geldern, University of Vienna; Pendleton Herring; Melville J. Herskovits, Northwestern University; Dell H. Hymes; Daniel Lerner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Alex­ander Lesser, Hofstra College; Edward Lurie, Wayne State University; Nancy O. Lurie, University of Michigan; Alfred Metraux, UNESCO; Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.; Thomas A. Sebeok, Indiana University; Harry L. Shapiro; Richard H. Shryock; Joseph J . Spengler, Duke University; George W. Stocking, Jr .• University of California, Berkeley; Sol Tax; C. F. Voegelin and Florence M. Voegelin, Indiana Univer­sity; Anthony F. C. Wallace, University of Pennsylvania; Rulon Wells, Yale University; Leslie A. White, University of Michigan; and Harry Woolf, Johns Hopkins University. Each had been invited by the subcommittee to contribute a paper on an aspect of the history of anthropology of particular interest to him. The invitation was ac­cepted by 23 persons, including Kenneth E. Bock of the University of California, Berkeley, who was unable to be present.

25

early enough in their careers. But, disconcertingly, they seem untroubled, and confident in ways of their own. They even presume to decide for themselves what por­tion of our accounts they will believel The situation is mildly embarrassing, especially if we wish to protest, since we have been in the business of doing the very same thing to other groups for years.

In essence, a good deal of the history of anthropology is going to be written by men who are not by origin, per­haps not even by aspiration or empathy, anthropologists. What should be our view, then, of the question, "Who shall write the history of anthropology"? Shall we turn the subject wholly over to historians of science and schol­arship? Or shall anthropologists continue to take part?

The best solution, I believe, is one already validated in the history of science, and one for which there is ample precedent among ourselves: turn some of the informants into professional collaborators. As put by Richard Shryock, himself an eminent figure in the history of sci­ence, the important thing is not the particular origin of the scholar, but that he know enough both of the sci­ence and of history. Historians can learn anthropology; anthropologists can learn history.

I believe that this solution is not only best, but neces­sary. I would add only the qualification that it should not be one-sided, that there be not only historians that learn anthropology, but also anthropologists, some of them, that learn history. In short, we must prepare to train some anthropologists as specialists in the history of anthropology. (This has already occurred in one or two cases at the University of Pennsylvania.)

The desirability of this course may be shown by ref­erence to the content of the conference. I should like to single out three characteristics that were both apparent and important: (1) how much the professionalization of the history of anthropology is already under way; (2) how important this history is in current theory and con­troversy; (3) that the historian of anthropology, nee his­torian, and the historian of anthropology, nee anthro­pologist, converge but do not merge entirely.

PROFESSIONALIZATION

It is fair to say that only a portion of the participants in the conference are, or intend to be, truly professional historians of anthropology; but the presence of that por­tion was unmistakable. Some of their distinctive traits, which enable one to recognize their presence, are these: use of out-of-the-way and unfamiliar sources, including unpublished ones, such as letters; attention to textual de­tail, to the interaction between ideas and their verbal embodiment, alertness to find other than present mean­ings in past usage, more than mere "semantics" in

26

wrestling with verbal tools; horizontal sectioning, re­lating an author to contemporary, including nonanthro· pological, figures and ideas, that is, seeing more than the "vertical" dimension of the profession's history that can be viewed as a lineal succession through time; in general, a clear sense of historical context and of historical prob­lems, judgments that are not anachronistic or a priori, but informed by historical relativism that answers to an anthropologist's wariness of ethnocentrism, studies that are more than chronicle.

As one of the papers that had these marks of a truly professional history of anthropology, I may cite that on Tylor and the concept of culture by Stocking.1 When someone writes a paper showing that Matthew Arnold held a position of major importance in the cultural life of the times vis-a.-vis that held by Tylor, between which there was an interaction; that Arnold in fact held a con­ception of culture closer in some respects than Tylor's to our own; and that the changes in the use of the terms "culture" and "civilization" in parallel passages of Boas' earlier and later writings show that when Kroeber and Kluckhohn attributed the modern concept of culture to Tylor's definition, and to Boas an apparent delay of a generation in its subsequent development, they had mat­ters almost exactly turned about, then we are in the pres­ence of a level of scholarship that makes retrospective speculation about the history of anthropology passe. If anthropologists want to talk about it themselves, they will have to meet similar standards.

IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY FOR CURRENT THEORY

Each time a major intellectual issue arose-the rela­tionship of science and humanities in anthropology, the comparative method, the place of Boas-a historical topic was converted into a substantive contemporary issue; this elicited arguments and sometimes emotions among the anthropologists present. A negative lesson is how little ready sense of the historical problem in this area most anthropologists have, or at least how difficult they find it to be historical about themselves. On the positive side, however, it shows that their history cannot be a matter of indifference to them, and that one reason for training historians of anthropology is to provide some objective control over the use of that history for legitimation, theory, and controversy. If some of the historians are anthropologists, their value in these re­spects is likely to be increased for they should be sensi­tive to the relevance of the history to current issues.

1 George W. Stocking, Jr., "Matthew Arnold, E. B. Tylor, and the Uses of Invention," with an Appendix "Evolutionary Ethnology and Cultural Relativism, 1870-1915: From Culture to Cultures."

Some controversies will dissolve, or at least change their character, when studied historically in an adequate way; and the essential controversies will show in a

__ clearer light. It becomes a little absurd to charge Boas with not having analyzed adequately the social organiza­tion of the Kwakiutl if, as Eggan pointed out at the con­ference, the proper concepts to apply to the Kwakiutl were not developed in the field until a few years ago. More historically appropriate issues about Boas can be investigated. Of course historians of science themselves may become personally involved in anthropological con­troversies. It is not a question of resolving perennial issues by historical study, but of dealing with them on a more worth-while level.

CONVERGENCE OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND HISTORY

The scholar with a historian's starting point and the scholar with an anthropologist's starting point have a somewhat different ground sense, a somewhat different predisposition, and different degree of comfortableness with particular kinds of material. This appeared in the kinds of comments and points of fact made in the dis­cussions at the conference. In my own paper I argued at some length for the contribution that the practicing

A anthropologist can make to the history of his field, in­.., cluding some historical topics in which he alone is likely

to be interested. Obviously, as Firth stated at the confer­ence and my preceding remarks imply, an equally essen­tial contribution is to be made by the professional his­torian. But this returns us to the main point: that we

need the contributions of both. I should like to close by relating that point to one further consideration.

Anthropology today is flushed with success in the United States: course enrollments increase; jobs multi­ply; sources of funds expand. To some extent this ma­terial success may be misleading as an index of the fu­ture. Besides indices of quantity, some of quality should be examined. Consider how much has changed in the terms of our competition, as it were, in the ecological niche of other related fields. The major ideological bat­tle that American anthropology has fought in the past generation has been largely won; almost everyone is a cultural relativist now (in the sense in which the term is opposed to parochialism, and ethnocentrism). And our private preserve, the parts of the world no one else seemed to want to study, is no longer ours. Scholars in almost every field today are engaged in research in Af­rica, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere. In short, two traits that have been of central importance and have formed much of our present image-cultural rela­tivism, and field work in faraway places-no longer give us an evolutionary advantage.

To a large extent, then, anthropologists can maintain their place not by what they do, but only by the way they do it. Having lost much of what advantage we had in the way of unique outlook and subject of study, we have to look much more to the quality of our work. That state­ment has many implications. One is the deepening of standards of historical scholarship among anthropolo­gists, both for work on special topics and on the history of anthropology. Specialization of some of us in the his­tory of science as it concerns anthropology is one route.

ON STUDYING THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY:

IN THE past half century history as a discipline has moved away from a narrow focus on war and politics to encompass the study of the social and intellectual life of man from the beginning of recorded history to the present. One of the most productive recent develop­ments in historical scholarship has been the expansion of interest in the history of science, an expansion that has produced significant contributions to our knowledge of the growth of man's understanding of his physical sur­roundings. After a Conference on the History of Quan­tification in the Sciences in November 1959, some of the participants discussed informally the possibility that

27

REFLECTIONS OF A HISTORIAN by Rowland L. Mitchell} Jr.

similar attention directed to the history of particular social sciences might be fruitful. They suggested that the Council endeavor to promote the study of this his­tory and that as a useful first step it sponsor a conference on the history of anthropology.

The small group invited to plan this conference early agreed that its participants should include sociologists and historians of science, as well as anthropologists, since it seemed certain that the history of anthropology would be greatly enriched if it could be placed in a broad his­torical and social context. Initially the group considered requesting only a few papers on specific topics, but

ultimately, in the hope of achieving a representative view of current scholarship and interest in the field, it decided to invite each participant to contribute a paper on a topic of his own choice. Of nearly 40 scholars in­vited to the conference, 23 contributed papers.

Some of these papers are chronological narratives based largely on secondary materials; others are con­cerned with methodological problems and the relation of anthropology to other disciplines; still others are per­sonal reminiscences; a few are studies based on careful analysis of contemporary documentary evidence in the context of the social and intellectual thought of the period. They view anthropological history in a number of ways: as institutional history, as biography, as a branch of the history of science, as intellectual history, as the sociology of knowledge. Neither individually nor as a group do they cover the field systematically or com­prehensively. Archaeology, for example, is unrepre­sented, as is physical anthropology, with the consequence that the relationship of anthropology to the biological sciences was barely suggested in the discussions at the conference. Further, despite the presence of scholars from Europe, the conference had a preoccupation with American developments that precluded more than pass­ing attention to developments abroad.

The content of the papers as well as the discussions demonstrated that systematic study of the history of anthropology, while rich and promising, is still in its in­fancy. Illustrative of this fact was the discussion of whether one date could be established to mark anthro­pology's emergence as a discipline. Some participants suggested precise years, such as 1858 or 1860; others, the early decades of the nineteenth century or the latter years of the eighteenth. Several pointed out that if anthropology were sufficiently broadly defined it would be discovered that Herodotus was the founder of the dis­cipline. Resolution of these differences was achieved only by agreeing that anthropological history cannot be treated as a unified whole but rather must be studied as the history of closely related but separate parts. Thus cultural anthropology, whose antecedents can be traced to antiquity, is of necessity a fairly recent division of anthropology since its development depends on the modern concept of culture, whereas ethnology, a field with equally ancient antecedents, began as a formal discipline in Europe at least as early as the eighteenth century. These and the other branches of anthropology need meticulous research to make clear the nature of their separate developments and their relations with one another and with other disciplines both in the hu­manities and the sciences.

In the process of research much will have to be un­learned before an accurate history of anthropology can

28

emerge. Like the cultures it studies, anthropology has a folklore, and although this folklore may have its uses it can impede clear historical understanding. Discussion of the contributions of Boas, Schoolcraft, and Tylor re-e vealed that existing folklore about them, and others of importance, is not an adequate substitute for systematic and detached evaluation of their intellectual activities and their contributions. When such appraisals are un­dertaken it seems probable that the great man theory of history, which the focus of the conference on a few fig­ures suggested, may be modified to take into account parallel discoveries in other countries and the work of other scholars less widely acknowledged at present as outstanding leaders. Such studies will also help to clarify the differential contributions of the several leaders as fieldworkers, research scholars, teachers, and directors of research.

Whether anthropological training by itself is sufficient for the scholar who wishes to do research on the history of his discipline was a question that properly concerned the conference. If the papers were representative of what may be expected of anthropologists not trained as his­torians, it is apparent that anthropologists are not neces­sarily historically minded and therefore may need spe­cial training in historical method. For example, although anthropologists recognize that the terms used to ex­plain concepts are significant indices of the level of a understanding within a culture, anthropologists looking. at their own history must be trained to avoid finding ideas in the past that in fact were not yet in existence. Here training in intellectual history and the history of science might provide an understanding of the intel­lectual setting in which anthropologists in the past lived and worked. Thus, Boas' strictures against the compara­tive method cannot be appreciated unless the scholar knows that this was a method used by paleontologists to reconstruct the whole skeleton from a part. Understand­ing why anthropologists had thought they could borrow this method requires not only knowledge of the rela­tions of nineteenth-century anthropology to the physical sciences but, in addition, knowledge of the philosophical assumptions of nineteenth-century social scientists.

Whether historical training by itself is sufficient for the historian who wishes to undertake research on the history of anthropology is an equally important ques­tion, and the participants in the conference agreed that such historians should have opportunity to acquire formal training in both the methods and the theory of anthropology.

All agreed, also, on the need for strengthening exist­ing archives and building new collections. It seems pos-I sible that anthropologists in the past have not been suf­ficiently concerned with the collection and preservation

of their leading scholars' unpublished notes and papers and that more attention should be given to these matters in the future. Specifically, the conference recommended

I that the systematic attempts of archivists to collect docu­mentary materials, such as field notes, field diaries, lec­ture notes, and correspondence, be given every encour-agement. It was even suggested that anthropologists might record, for the use of future scholars, their ex­periences as students or colleagues of anthropological leaders no longer living.

Even with the materials now in existence, however, much can be done. As suggested above, detailed studies of every field in anthropology are needed, and various participants in the conference identified other areas that merit attention. Among those that seemed most promising were the role of field studies in disciplinary training; the professionalization of the discipline; the roles of sources of financial support, museums, and journals in guiding the direction of research; and com-

parative studies of national developments. Whether these studies be undertaken by anthropologists or by historians is not important. What matters is that they be undertaken in the spirit of scientific inquiry which has characterized the best scholarship in both disciplines.

As a last and personal comment, I cannot forbear men­tioning that for a historian this conference was an il­luminating reminder that many areas of the past need sharply focused attention, in some cases hitherto almost wholly lacking. If the role of the historian is to help man understand his past, one important way he can fulfill this role is to study the development of man's under­standing of himself and his social environment-that is, to study the development of the disciplines that have come to be called the social sciences. The conference made clear that exciting historical research does not de­pend on finding the untouched papers of still another minor military man or politician in a dusty trunk in an attic.

COMMITTEE ON THE ECONOMY OF CHINA: FIRST REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH

SINCE the beginning of the communist regime in 1949, China has been undergoing rapid and enormous changes. A major industrial advance under a first five­year plan and under the "Great Leap Forward" was fol­lowed by agricultural difficulties which have markedly slowed the pace of industrial growth, if it has not been stopped altogether. Traditional patterns of agriculture have been disrupted by efforts at thoroughgoing collec­tivization, while ambitious construction projects have been undertaken in an attempt to make full use of

. China's principal resource, its manpower. What has happened in China in the past decade and

what will happen in the next are of critical importance to the rest of the world. For better or for worse this popu­lous nation is being thrust into modernity at a pace un­equalled in history. Changes are taking place so quickly that even journalists cannot keep abreast of them, and objective research has been even less able to assess this fluid situation. Yet it is essential that a full and clear view of what China is becoming be obtained.

For these reasons a series of discussions by interested economists, initiated by the Joint Committee on Con; I temporary China in a conference on September 9-10, 1960, led to the formulation of a five-year program of re­search on the Chinese economy. The Committee on

29

by Walter Galenson

Problems and Policy appointed the Committee on the Economy of China in September 1961 with the expecta­tion that financial support for this program would be­come available, and in December the Ford Foundation made a grant of $910,000 to the Council for the purpose. l

The new committee held its first formal meeting on February 16~17, and met again on May 4-5.

The decision that a coordinated research program was needed, rather than one of grants-in-aid, was based on a number of factors, which were reviewed by the com­mittee at its first meeting. The urgency of extending knowledge of Chinese economic institutions and their performance, the dearth of scholarly work on commu­nist China, and the belief that a more rapid commit­ment of personnel to the task at hand could be obtained through committee initiative in recruiting qualified economists were major factors supporting the decision. It was thought that the needed coverage of topics could best be achieved if invitations were extended for work on specified studies. Also, the difficulty of research on China has been compounded by the almost complete ab-

1 Cf. Items, December 1961. p. 45. The members of the Committee on the Economy of China are Simon Kumets. Harvard University (chairman); A. Doak Barnett. Columbia University; Abram Bergson, Harvard University; Walter Galenson. University of California. Berke­ley; and Joseph A. Kershaw. Williams College; staff, Paul Webbink.

sence of aggregate statistical data since 1959, as well as the rather poor quality of those for years before 1959, so that a pooling of information among scholars was re­garded as much more likely than individualized and iso­lated efforts to lead to significant research results.

As its first step the committee developed a compre­hensive list of studies that it would like to initiate dur­ing the next five years. Some of the proposed studies are broad in scope, such as the construction of indices of agricultural and industrial output; others are of a more sectorial character, such as studies of the textile, iron and steel, coal, and machinery industries. Still others would be concerned with institutional aspects of the Chinese economy-the communes, the banking and credit system, the planning mechanism, and the struc­ture of industrial management. While the committee's immediate efforts are directed toward advancing quanti­tative studies, it is seeking also to encourage some non­quantitative studies insofar as competent investigators can be found to deal with such subjects as Chinese in­dustrial management, the social organization of the com­munes, and the politics of economic planning.

The topics that have been chosen are being assigned as rapidly as possible to qualified research workers. In­dividuals have been invited to begin work on studies on which reports of either article or monograph length might be envisaged, depending on the availability of materials and of research time. Many of those invited are located at small colleges or universities with inadequate research facilities, and in these cases sufficient financial assistance has been provided to permit leaves from regu­lar positions. The committee considers it desirable that the participants in its studies work near others engaged in similar research and has encouraged the formation of research groups where library facilities are especially good. For example, several economists working under committee sponsorship were located at the University of Michigan during the summer of 1962, and a smaller group will be working at the University of California, Berkeley, during the coming academic year. Although

the studies will proceed independently, it is hoped that the opportunity to confer with others who are engaged in closely related projects will contribute to the quality of the results. _

The committee is continuing to search for economists and others interested and competent to work on topics with which it is concerned, in the hope that further studies can be initiated during 1963. Participation in the committee's program is not restricted to persons re­siding in the United States. Collaboration with econo­mists in Canada, Great Britain, and Japan, and possibly other countries, is expected to be arranged. The com­mittee is taking into account studies being made with­out its assistance and is making its plans accordingly, to avoid duplication of effort.

In May Nai-Ruenn Chen, formerly of the University of Illinois, was retained as full-time assistant to the di­rector of research, with the two principal functions of providing bibliographical assistance to participants in the studies, which is of critical importance in view of the difficulties involved in obtaining Chinese publications, and of coordinating the collection of statistical data un­der the guidance of the director of research. The latter project is intended to provide materials for one or more issues of an annotated handbook of Chinese economic statistics, comprising a collection of carefully evaluated data, with comments on their reliability, their consis-a tency from year to year, and any existing alternative. estimates.

At its February meeting the committee named a gen­eral advisory group, consisting of Alexander Eckstein of the University of Michigan, Franklin Ho, formerly of Columbia University, Choh-Ming Li of the University of California, Berkeley, and Ta-Chung Liu of Cornell University. Members of this group are serving also as consultants for specific projects. In addition the commit­tee has invited Gregory Grossman and George Kuznets of the University of California, Berkeley, and Norman Kaplan of the University of Rochester to serve as con­sultants for certain other projects.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS

COMPARATIVE POLITICS

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

A · seminar on education and political development, the third in the series planned by the committee, was held at the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center (of the University

30

of California, Los Angeles) on June 25-29, under the chair­manship of Mr. Coleman. For the seminar, papers were prepared on education and development in the following areas or countries, by the specialists indicated: the Philip­pines, Carl H. Lande, Yale University; India, Edward A. Shils, University of Chicago; Nigeria, Ayo Ogunsheye, Har-I yard University; French-speaking developing countries, Mi­chel Debeauvais, Institut d'Etude du Developpement Eco-

I

nomique et Social, Paris; Tunisia, Leon Carl Brown, Harvard University; Egypt, Malcolm . Kerr, University of California, Los Angeles; Brazil, Frank Bonilla, American Universities Field Staff; Japan, Herbert Passin, Univer­sity of Washington; Soviet Union, Jeremy R. Azrael, Uni­versity of Chicago; communist China, John W. Lewis, Cornell University. Other papers prepared for the seminar were: "Higher Education in the Development of Future West Mrican Leaders," Dwaine Marvick, University of California, Los Angeles; "A Training Program for Political Leaders in Latin America," Benjamin Nufiez, Interameri­can Institute of Political Education, San Jose, Costa Rica; "The Education of the Military Leadership in Emergent States: Its Organization, Content and Political Implica­tions," W. F. Gutteridge, Royal Military Academy, Sand­hurst; "Traditional Authority and the New Leadership Cadres," Anthony H. M. Kirk-Greene, Ahmadu Bello Uni­versity, Nigeria; "Investment in Education and Its Political Impact in Developing Countries," Bert F. Hoselitz, Univer­sity of Chicago; "Conflicts in Education Planning," William J. Platt, Stanford University; "Education and the Making of Modern Nations," Francis X. Sutton, Ford Foundation.

The participants in addition to authors, members of the committee, and staff included: C. rold Anderson, University of Chicago; David E. Apter, University of California, Berkeley; Robert E. Baldwin, Edouard Bustin, Charles R. Nixon, M. G. Smith, and Howard S~arer, University of California, Los Angeles; Robert D. Barend­son and Kenneth L. Neff, U. S. Office of Education; Saburi Biobaku, University of He, Nigeria; William J. Foltz, Yale UniversitytCduardo Hamuy, University of Chile; H. Field Haviland, Jr., Brookings Institution; Pendleton Herring; John Howard, Ford Foundation; C. Kenneth Snyder, U. S. Department of State; and Clarence E. Thurber, Pennsyl­vania State University.

The papers and proceedings of the seminar are being edited by Mr. Coleman for inclusion in the committee's monograph series, "Studies in Political Development," to be published by the Princeton University Press.

CONTEMPORARY CHINA: SUBCOMMITTEE

Saskatchewan. In addition, the chairman of the group invited to organize the seminar, H. F. Schurmann of the University of California, Berkeley, prepared two agenda papers on its general subject and arranged for the com­pilation by Ruth Ann Pitts of the same University of an annotated bibliography of works in English dealing with systematic study and analysis of Soviet and Chinese dis­placed persons. These materials were distributed to the participants in advance of the seminar.

The participants in addition to authors of papers (except Donald E. Willmott, who was unable to be present) and the members and staff of the subcommittee were: Robert Chin, Boston University; Ai-Ii S. Chin and Ezra F. Vogel, Harvard University; Robert E. Goodnow, Psychological Assessment Associates, Washington, D.C.; Robert Grey, Carnegie Corporation of New York; Ping-ti Ho, William L. Holland, Stanford M. Lyman, and William E. Willmott, University of British Columbia; Marion J. Levy, Jr., Prince­ton University; Herbert Passin and George E. Taylor, Uni­versity of Washington; Anderson Shih, Union Research In­stitute, Hong Kong; Arthur P. Wolf, Cornell University; and C. K. Yang, University of Pittsburgh.

EXCHANGES WITH ASIAN INSTITUTIONS

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

The committee's program, which involves the selection of American social scientists to participate in the develop­ment of research at certain Asian institutions, originally the Oriental Library (Toyo Bunko), Tokyo, and the National Central Research Institute (Academia Sinica), Taipei, has been expanded to provide a similar arrangement with the Asiatic Research Center, Korea University, Seoul, over the next three years. It is hoped that this arrangement will facilitate research and scholarly communication on the part of universities and individuals concerned with Korean stu­dies in the United States and their counterparts at the Center in Seoul.

ON RESEARCH ON CHINESE SOCIETY FOREIGN AREA FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

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

The third seminar in the series sponsored by the sub­committee, on research on contemporary Chinese society based on interviews with and materials supplied by dis­placed persons, was held at the University of British Colum­bia on May 25-26. Papers prepared for the seminar in­cluded: "On Research through Chinese Displaced Persons in the United States," by Hope J. Leichter, Teachers Col­lege, Columbia University; "On Interviewing Chinese Dis­placed Persons," by Robert M. Marsh, Cornell University; "On. Depth Interviewing of Chinese Displaced Persons in Hong Kong," by Isadora Ding S~urmann, University of Galifernia, Berkeley; "Memorandum on Interviewing Chi­nese Refugees," by Donald E. W:illmott, University of

31

(Joint with American Council of Learned Societies)

Pendleton Herring (chairman), Schuyler C. Wallace (di­rector), Frederick Burkhardt, Chauncy D. Harris, T. Cuyler Young.

The transfer of the Foreign Area Fellowship Program from the Ford Foundation to the joint committee was com­pleted on May 31, 1962. At that time the staff of the Fellow­ship Program moved into its new offices at 444 Madison Avenue, New York 22. The joint committee held its first meeting there on June 12 and formally authorized the fel­lowship procedures which would be followed in 1962-63. In accordance with the agreement with the Ford Founda­tion, these will be, with minor exceptions, the procedures used by the Foundation in the past.

The joint committee agreed further to administer an

interfaculty exchange between a number of universities in the United States and a number of institutions in Latin America. Initially six American institutions have been in­vited to participate in the exchange: University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley; University of California, Los Angeles; Columbia University; Harvard University; University of Minnesota; and University of Texas. The administration of the faculty interchange will be centered in an inter­university management committee chaired by the director of the Foreign Area Fellowship Program. The members of this committee are David E. Apter, Associate Director of the Institute of International Studies, University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley; Henry J. Bruman, Professor of Geography, Acting Director of the Center of Latin American Studies, University of California, Los Angeles; Charles Wagley, Director of the Institute of Latin American Studies, Co­lumbia University; William S. Barnes, Director of Latin American Studies, Harvard University; Philip M. Raup, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Minne­sota; and Joe W. Neal, Director, International Office, Uni­versity of Texas. The Latin American institutions remain to be selected. The primary purpose of this program is to strengthen Latin American studies in the United States by enabling American scholars to study and do research in Latin America, and by bringing to the American centers Latin American scholars who will strengthen the American offerings and who may profit by association with their American confreres. A grant of $1,000,000 from the Ford Foundation has been placed at the disposal of the joint committee for this purpose.

A meeting of the management committee together with a number of university administrators and representatives of the Ford Foundation has been called for September 24. At that time an attempt will be made to develop criteria for selecting participants in the program and to work out rules of procedure.

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Louis Gottschalk (chairman), William O. Aydelotte, Thomas C. Cochran, Merle Curti, Roy F. Nichols, David M. Potter; staff, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.

The committee has reached the point in its inquiry into the role played by generalizations in historical study where it is ready to submit its concluding report, General Con­cepts in the Writing of History, edited by Louis Gottschalk. It will be published by the University of Chicago Press dur­ing the coming winter. The volume includes the following essays prepared for the committee: "Reflections upon the Problem of Generalization," Chester G. Starr; "Generaliza­tions in Ancient History," M. I. Finley; "On the Uses of Generalization in the Study of Chinese History," Arthur F. Wright; "Comments on the Paper of Arthur F. Wright," Derk Bodde; "Generalizations about Revolution: A Case Study," Robert R. Palmer; "Generalizations about National Character: An Analytical Essay," Walter P. Metzger; "The Historian's Use of Social Role," Thomas C. Cochran; "Cate­gories of Historiographical Generalization," Louis Gott-

32

schalk; "The Genealogy of Historical Generalizations," Roy F. Nichols; "Notes on the Problem of Historical Generali­zation," William O. Aydelotte; "Explicit Data and Implicit Assumptions in Historical Study," David M. Potter. The Foreword and a concluding Summary have been contributed by the editor. Included also are a "Bibliography on Histori­ography and the Philosophy of History," by Martin Klein, and commentaries, in footnotes, by Hans Meyerhoff.

INTELLECTIVE PROCESSES RESEARCH

William Kessen (chairman), Roger Brown, Jerome Kagan, Lloyd N. Morrisett, Paul H. Mussen, A. Kimball Romney, Harold W. Stevenson; staff, Francis H. Palmer.

In accordance with arrangements made by the committee for publication of the proceedings of its conferences as Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop­ment, the product of the first conference, Thought in the Young Child: Report of a Conference on Intellective De­velopment, with Particular Attention to the Work of Jean Piaget, edited by Mr. Kessen and Clementina Kuhlman, of Harvard University, was published in Mayas Vol. 27, No.2 (Serial No. 83). The report of the second conference, Basic Cognitive Processes in Children, edited by John C. Wright of the University of Minnesota and Mr. Kagan, is now in press. The proceedings of the third conference, on research on first-language acquisition, are being edited by Mr. Brown and Ursula Bellugi of Harvard University, and the resulting monograph is expected to be published in 1963.

The committee's fourth conference, on mathematical learning, was organized by Mr. Morrisett and held in Berke­ley, California, on May 4-6, 1962. The following papers were prepared in advance and discussed as indicated: "Learning and Using the Mathematical Concept of a Func­tion," by Marshall Stone, University of Chicago, discussed by Mr. Kessen; "An Example of 'Intermediate Invention': Maneuvers on Lattices," by David A. Page, University of Illinois, discussed by Mr. Romney; "On the Behavioral Foundations of Mathematical Concepts," by Patrick Suppes, Stanford University, discussed by Mr. Palmer; "Issues Cur­rent in Functional Psychology," by Lee J. Cronbach, Uni­versity of Illinois, discussed by Mr. Mussen. In addition, reports on current research were presented by Layman E. Allen of Yale University, on "Autotelic Learning of Mathe­matical Logic," and by Robert M. Gagne of Princeton Uni­versity, on "Some Factors in Learning Non-Metric Geome­try." Helen Kinney of Harvard University presented a review of research, "Operation, Embodiments, and N ota­tion in Mathematics Learning." A concluding summary of the conference was given by Andrew Gleason of Harvard University. John Vinsonhaler of the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, served as rapporteur and is assisting Mr. Morrisett in editing the proceedings.

An international conference on cognitive development in children was held by the committee at VoksenAsen, near Oslo, July 26 - August 1, 1962. In addition to members of the committee and staff, the participants included: Zofia

Babska, University of Warsaw; Barbel Inhelder, University of Geneva; A. R. Jonckheere, University College London; Eric Lunzer, University of Manchester; Neil O'Connor, So­cial Psychiatry Research Unit, Maudsley Hospital, London; HanuS PapouSek, Institute for Care of Mother and Child, Prague; Heinz F. R. Prechtl, State University of Groningen; Kjell Raaheim, University of Bergen; Per Saugstad, Uni­versity of Oslo; Alina Szeminska, Pedagogical Institute, University of Warsaw; A. V. Zaporozhetz, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, Moscow. The program of the con­ference, which was planned by Mr. Mussen, who will edit the proceedings, included reports by the European partici­pants on their research and theories, discussions of these reports, of statements by several other participants, and of issues common to the various reports.

The committee will sponsor an institute on cognitive development in the child, at the University of Minnesota during the summer of 1964, tentatively from June 10 to July 25. The purpose of the institute will be to provide graduate students and recent recipients of the Ph.D. with more comprehensive training in cognitive development than could be obtained at any single university. Members of the committee will serve, with others, as faculty. Further information can be obtained by writing directly to Harold W. Stevenson, Director, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota.

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

Robert N. Burr (chairman), Fred P. Ellison, Joseph Grun­wald, Joseph A. Kahl, Robert E. Scott, Stanley J. Stein, Charles Wagley; staff, Bryce Wood.

On August 16-18 an Inter-American Conference on Re­search and Training in Economics was held in Santiago, Chile, under the joint auspices of the committee and the Instituto de Economia of the University of Chile-the sec­ond international conference sponsored by the committee with funds provided by the Council on Higher Education in the American Republics. As in the case of the similar conference of sociologists held in August 1961 (d. Items, December 1961, pp. 41-45), the purpose was to contribute to the improvement of communication between scholars in the Americas. The 25 participants in the conference were: Abram Bergson, Harvard University; Edgardo Boenninger, Ministry of Finance, Chile; Emile Despres, Stanford Uni­versity; Guillermo S. Edelberg, Torcuato Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires; Luis Escobar Cerda, University of Chile; Edmundo Flores, National University of Mexico; Samuel Gorban, National University of the Litoral, Rosario; R. A. Gordon, University of California, Berkeley; Joseph Grun­wald, Yale University; Arnold C. Harberger, University of Chicago; Albert G. Hart, University of Chile (on leave from Columbia University); Albert o. Hirschman, Colum­bia University; Isaac Kerstenetzky, Getulio Vargas Founda­tion; Rolf Liiders, Catholic University of Chile; Roberto Maldonado, Carlos Massad, both of the University of Chile; Wilbert E. Moore, Princeton University; Theodore Morgan,

33

University of Wisconsin; Anibal Pinto, Economic Commis­sion for Latin America, Rio de Janeiro; Alfonso Santa Cruz and Osvaldo Sunkel, both of the Economic Commission for Latin America, Santiago; John D. Strasma, University of Chile; Jose Vera Lamperein, University of Chile; Bryce Wood. The five sessions of the conference were devoted to discussion of the following topics: objectives of research and training in economics; undergraduate training of econ­omists in Latin America and the United States; graduate training of economists in Latin America and the United States; development of research in economics; scholarly communication and interchange.

A second inter-American meeting of sociologists was held at Princeton University on September 10-12, with the aid of the committee. This conference was organized by the Latin American Group for the Development of Sociology, which was formed through the initiative of the Latin Ameri­can participants in the committee's 1961 conference.

PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT IN YOUTH

Ralph W. Tyler (chairman), Robert E. L. Faris, Chester W. Harris, Nicholas Hobbs, T. R. McConnell, Theodore M. Newcomb, C. Robert Pace, Nevitt Sanford; staff, Francis H. Palmer.

A conference on problems in the measurement of change, organized by Mr. Harris, was held with the support of the committee on April 30, May 1-2 at Madison, Wisconsin. The program was designed particularly to examine some of the more recent developments in psychometrics and statis­tics for dealing with evidence of change. The following papers were prepared and circulated in advance: "Some Persisting Dilemmas in the Measurement of Change," Carl Bereiter, University of Illinois; "Elementary Models for Measuring Change," Frederic Lord, Educational Testing Service; "The Reliability of Changes Measured by Mental Test Scores," Harold Webster, University of California, Berkeley, and Carl Bereiter; "Univariate Analysis Models in the Measurement of Change," John Gaito, Kansas State University, and David E. Wiley, University of Wisconsin; "Multivariate Models for Evaluating Change," Paul Horst, University of Washington; "Implications of Factor Analysis of Three-Way Matrices for Measurement of Change," Led­yard R. Tucker, University of Illinois; "Canonical Factor Models for the Description of Change," Chester W. Harris; "The Best Approximation of a Common-Factor Space," Henry F. Kaiser, University of Illinois; "Some Issues in P­Technique and Incremental R-Technique Models," Ray­mond B. Cattell, University of Illinois; "Multivariate Anal­ysis of Variance of Repeated Measurements," R. Darrell Bock, University of North Carolina; "Statistical Models for the Study of Change in the Single Case," Wayne H. Holtz­man, University of Texas; and "From Description to Ex­perimentation: Interpreting Trends as Quasi-Experiments," Donald T. Campbell, Northwestern University. The papers are being edited by Mr. Harris for early publication in a volume by the University of Wisconsin Press.

The committee joined the Western Interstate Commission

for Higher Education and the University of California Center for the Study of Higher Education in sponsoring an Institute on the Study of Campus Cultures, held in Berkeley, July 23-27, 1962. Messrs. Tyler, Newcomb, and Pace were members of the Institute's faculty.

POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

David B. Truman (chairman), William M. Beaney, Angus Campbell, Robert A. Dahl, Oliver Garceau, V. O. Key, Jr., Avery Leiserson, Edward H. Levi; staff, Bryce Wood.

With the assistance of the committee, an exploratory sur­vey of the state of election statistics in the United States,

the methods that might be employed to gather and make them generally available for use in research, and the feasi­bility of such a project was made by Walter Dean Burnham of Kenyon College during the summer of 1962. In response to a request from the Joint Committee on Political Science and Administrative Law, appointed by the American Po­litical Science Association and the Association of American Law Schools, the Committee on Political Behavior is sup­porting a conference on October 12-13, planned by the joint committee to improve collaboration between law schools and political scientists in teaching and research on administrative law and the regulatory process.

PERSONNEL

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL

At the annual meeting of the board of directors of the Council held in September, Chauncy D. Harris, S. S. Wilks, and Donald Young were re-elected directors-at-Iarge for the two-year term 1963-64. John W. Tukey of Princeton Uni­versity was also elected a director-at-Iarge for that term.

Herbert A. Simon was elected chairman of the board of directors; Wayne H. Holtzman, vice-chairman; Louis Gotts­chalk, secretary; and Nathan Keyfitz, treasurer. The follow­ing members of the board were elected as its Executive Committee: S. S. Wilks (chairman), Thomas C. Cochran, George H. Hildebrand, David B. Truman, and Donald Young. V. O. Key, Jr. of Harvard University was named chairman of the Committee on Problems and Policy; and Chauncy D. Harris and Wilbert E. Moore were elected members of the committee for the three-year term 1962-65. Its other members are Paul J. Bohannan, R. A. Gordon, David M. Potter, and ex officio: Pendleton Herring, Herbert A. Simon, and Wayne H. Holtzman.

COUNCIL COMMITTEES ON FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS

Faculty Research Fellowships. John Useem of Michigan State University has been reappointed chairman of the com­mittee for 1962-63. Lawrence E. Fouraker of Harvard Uni­versity, John D. Lewis of Oberlin College, and Gardner Lindzey of the University of Minnesota have been reap­pointed members. Charles G. Sellers of the University of California, Berkeley, and Fritz Stem of Columbia Univer­sity have been newly appointed to the committee.

Exchanges with Asian Institutions. John K. Fairbank of Harvard University has been reappointed chairman of the committee for 1962-63. George E. Taylor of the University of Washington, C. Martin Wilbur of Columbia University, and Mary C. Wright of Yale University also have been reap­pointed; and Edward W. Wagner of Harvard University has been newly appointed to the committee.

Grants-in-Aid. Paul J. Bohannan of Northwestern Univer­sity has been appointed chairman for 1962-63. Also reap­pointed to the committee are Alfred D. Chandler of Mas­sachusetts Institute of Technology, Holland Hunter of Haverford College, William H. Riker of the University of Rochester, and Gordon Wright of Stanford University. Guy E. Swanson of the University of Michigan has been newly appointed to the committee.

34

International Conference Travel Grants. Leonard Krieger of Yale University has been reappointed chairman; and Rowland A. Egger of the University of Virginia, George Garvy of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Roger W. Russell of Indiana University, and Harry Venneman of the Bureau of the Budget have been reappointed members of the committee for 1962-63. Newly appointed members are Ward H. Goodenough of the University of Pennsylvania and Matilda White Riley of Rutgers University. Messrs. Krieger and Garvy and Mrs. Riley constitute the commit­tee's Executive Subcommittee.

National Security Policy Research. William T. R. Fox, Columbia University (chairman); Morris Janowitz, Univer­sity of Chicago; Klaus Knorr, Princeton University: G. A. Lincoln, U. S. Military Academy; John W. Masland, Dart­mouth College; Robert E. Osgood, University of Chicago: Arthur Smithies, Harvard University; and Robert C. Wood, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have been reap­pointed for 1962-63.

Political Behavior. David B. Truman of Columbia Uni­versity has been reappointed chairman of this committee, which continues to administer its program of grants for re­search on American governmental and legal processes, and this year also administers the Council's program of senior awards for research on governmental affairs. Also reap­pointed to the committee are William M. Beaney of Prince­ton University, Robert A. Dahl of Yale University, Oliver Garceau of East Boothbay, Maine, V. O. Key, Jr. of Harvard University, Avery Leiserson of Vanderbilt University, and Edward H. Levi of the University of Chicago. Angus Camp­bell of the University of Michigan has been added to the membership.

Political Theory and Legal Philosophy Fellowships. J. Roland Pennock, Swarthmore College (chairman); David Easton, University of Chicago; Jerome Hall, Indiana Uni­

_ versity; John H. Hallowell, Duke University; Robert G. • McCloskey, Harvard University; and Sheldon S. Wolin, Uni­

versity of California, Berkeley, have been reappointed for 1962-63.

Social Science Personnel. George H. Hildebrand of Cor­nell University has been named chairman of the committee, which has charge of the Council's research training fel­lowship program. Newly appointed to the committee are Charles E. Gilbert of Swarthmore College and Irving L. Janis of Yale University. Harry Alpert of the University of Oregon, David M. Schneider of the University of Chicago, and Paul Webbink of the Council have been reappointed.

APPOINTMENTS TO RESEARCH PLANNING COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL

Lee J. Cronbach of the University of Illinois (chairman), Richard C. Atkinson of Stanford University, Eleanor J. Gibson of Cornell University, Evan R. Keislar of the Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, and Judson T. Shaplin of Harvard University have been appointed members of a

new Committee on Learning and the Educational Process, for which Francis H. Palmer serves as staff.

John Blackmore of the University of Massachusetts, Bruce F. Johnston of Stanford University, and George Montgom­ery of Kansas State University have been appointed members of the Committee on Agricultural Economics.

Leonard Binder of the University of Chicago, Sidney Verba of Princeton University, and Myron Weiner of Mas­sachusetts Institute of Technology have been appointed to the Committee on Comparative Politics.

Bert G. Hickman of Brookings Institution has been named chairman of the Committee on Economic Stability.

R. Duncan Luce has been appointed to the Committee on Mathematics in Social Science Research.

Robert E. L. Faris of the University of Washington has been appointed a member of the Committee on Personality Development in Youth.

Bert F. Green, Jr. of Carnegie Institute of Technology has been named chairman of the Committee on Simulation of Cognitive Processes, and Lyle V. Jones of the University of North Carolina has been appointed to the committee.

Wilbur R. Thompson of Wayne State University has been appointed to the Committee on Urbanization.

PUBLICA rlONS

_ COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS

Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas, edited by Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold S. Feld­man. Sponsored by the Committee on Economic Growth. December 1960. 393 pages. Cloth, $3.75.

Theoretical Studies in Social 01"ganization of the Prison, Pamphlet 15, by Richard A. Cloward, Donald R. Cres­sey, George H. Grosser, Richard McCleery, Lloyd E. Ohlin, and Gresham M. Sykes and Sheldon L. Mes­singer. Papers prepared by members of a Conference Group on Correctional Organization, sponsored by the Council in 1956-57. March 1960. 152 pages. $1.50.

The publications of the Council are distributed from its office, 230 Park Avenue, New York 17, N. Y.

OTHER BOOKS

Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957. Prepared by the Bureau of the Census, with the assistance of the former Advisory Committee on Historical Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, August 1960. 2nd printing, February 1962. 800 pages. $6.00.

Capital Formation in Japan, 1868-1940, by Henry Rosov­sky. Aided by the Committee on Economic Growth. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. 371 pages. $7.50.

Changes in the Location of Manufacturing in the United States Since 1929, by Victor R. Fuchs. Sponsored by the Committee on Analysis of Economic Census Data. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1962. 587 pages. $10.00.

Matrilineal Kinship, edited by David M. Schneider and Kathleen Gough. Product of the Interuniversity Sum-

85

mer Research Seminar on Kinship Research, 1954. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1961. 781 pages. $11.75.

Natural Resources and Economic Growth, edited by Joseph J. Spengler. Papers presented at a conference at Ann Arbor, Michigan, April 7-9, 1960, jointly spon­sored by Resources for the Future, Inc. and the Com­mittee on Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: Re­sources for the Future, Inc., 1961. 316 pages. $3.50.

Organizing for Defense, by Paul Y. Hammond. Based in part on work at the Interuniversity Summer Research Seminar on National Security Policy, 1958. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. 414 pages. $7.95.

Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change, edited by Edward H. Spicer. Product of the Interuniversity Summer Research Seminar on Differential Culture Change, 1956. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. 559 pages. $10.00.

Projective Techniques and Cross-Cultural Research, by Gardner Lindzey. Initiated under the auspices of the former Committee on Social Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961. 348 pages. $6.00.

Quantification: A History of the Meaning of Measure­ment in the Natural and Social Sciences, edited by Harry Woolf. Product of the Conference on the History of Quantification in the Sciences, November 20-21, 1959, sponsored by the former Joint Committee on the History of Science. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Com­pany, 1961. 224 pages. $6.50.

The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. A Conference of the Universities­National Bureau Committee for Economic Research

and the Committee on Economic Growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962. 644 pages. $12.50.

Thought in the Young Child: Report of a Conference on Intellective Development) with Particular Attention to the Work of Jean Piaget) edited by William Kessen and Clementina Kuhlman. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 27, No.2 (Serial

No. 83), 1962. Lafayette, Indiana: Child Development Publications. 176 pages. $3.50.

Types of Formalization in Small-Group Research) by Joseph Berger, Bernard P. Cohen, J. Laurie Snell, and Morris Zelditch, Jr. Aided by the Committee on Mathe- a matics in Social Science Research. Boston: Houghton WI Mifflin Company, 1962. 170 pages. $4.50.

COUNCIL FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS OFFERED IN 196.2-63: DATES FOR FILING APPLICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF AWARDS

Applications for fellowships and grants offered by the Council during the coming year will be due, and awards will be announced, on or before the respective dates listed below. Because full consideration cannot be assured for late applications, and because preliminary correspondence is fre­quently necessary to determine under which program a given proposal should be submitted, prospective applicants should communicate with the Council if possible at least three weeks in advance of the pertinent closing date. Inquiries and requests for application forms should indicate the candi­date's age, place of permanent residence, present position or activity, degrees held and degree currently sought if any, the general nature of the proposed training or research, and the duration and amount of support desired. A brochure describing the several programs is available on request ad­dressed to Social Science Research Council Fellowships and Grants, 230 Park Avenue, New York 17, N. Y.:

Research Training Fellowships, and Fellowships for Com­pletion of Doctoral Dissertations, applications, Decem­ber 1, 1962; awards, March 15, 1963

Fellowships in Political Theory and Legal Philosophy, applications, December 1, 1962; awards, March 15, 1963

Faculty Research Fellowships, and Grants-in-Aid of Re­search, first competition: applications, November 1, 1962; awards, January 2, 1963; second competition: ap­plications, February 1, 1963; awards, April 1, 1963

Senior Research Awards in American Governmental Af­fairs, nominations, December 1, 1962

Grants for Research on American Governmental and Legal Processes, applications, December 1, 1962; awards, February 15, 1963

Grants for Research on National Security Policy, applica­tions, December 1, 1962; awards, March 1, 1963

·Grants for African Studies, applications, December 15, 1962; awards, February 1, 1963

·Grants for Asian Studies, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York 17, N.Y., December 1, 1962; awards, within 12 weeks thereafter

·Grants for Latin American Studies, applications, Decem­ber 15, 1962; awards, February 1, 1963

·Grants for Near and Middle Eastern Studies, applications, December 15, 1962; awards, February 1, 1963

·Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned So­cieties, 345 East 46 Street, New York 17, N.Y., December 15, 1962; awards, within 10 weeks thereafter

International Conference Travel Grants, requests from .. individuals desiring travel grants to enable them to WI participate in international meetings may be submitted at any time up to June 15, 1963. Applications will nor­mally be considered within 10 weeks after the date of filing, but should a number of requests be anticipated for the same meeting, it may be necessary to defer final action until about 3 months before the meeting.

·Travel grants for international conferences on Slavic and East European Studies, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York 17, N.Y.

• Offered to research scholars in the social sciences and humanities, under a joint program of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

MALCOLM M. WILLEY, DONALD YOUNG _

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

ISBELL, FRANCIS H. PALMER, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., Staff Associates; CATHERINE V. RON NAN, Financial Secretary

36