SOCIAL SCIENCE· RESEARCH COUNCIL

GEORGETO\NN UNiVERSITY

CENTE.R fOR POPUU .. TIGH'I RESEARCH

VOLUME 28 . NUMBER 1 MARCH 1974 605 THIRD AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

TWO DECADES OF COUNCIL ACTIVITY IN THE RAPPROCHEMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

SOCIAL SCIENTISTS will generally concede that language is fundamental to the definition of humanity, that lan­guage is central to nearly all phases of human activity, and that language is a product of society. Yet scholars have turned variously to focus on language as structure, as art, as skill to be learned, as medium of social integra­tion, and worked in isolation from each other. In the

•

past twenty years that separation has been diminished, thanks in large measure to the facilitative efforts of the Social Science Research Council.

•

The impetus for a systematic bridge between psy­chology and linguistics was first given form by John B. Carroll, a psychologist familiar with linguistics. In 1951 an Interuniversity Summer Research Seminar on Lin­guistics and Psychology, held at Cornell University under the Council's program financed by the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation, discovered the term "psy­cholinguistics" and laid out some areas of profitable interchange, in the study of mother tongue acquisition, language structure and thought, the analysis of linguistic

• The author, Professor of Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley, is a director-at-large of the Social Science Research Council, and has long been associated with it in many capacities: as a predoctoral Research Training Fellow, 1952-53; a participant in the Interuniversity Summer Research Seminar in Psycholinguistics, 1953, and member of the staff of the Southwest Project in Comparative Psycholinguistics (and author of many reports on its studies), 1954-59, both under the auspices of the Committee on Linguistics and Psychology; grantee for attendance at the Congress of the International Union of Scientific Psychology, 1960; Faculty Research Fellow, 1964-65; consultant, Summer Research Seminar on Sociolinguistics, 1964; member, Committee on Sociolinguis­tics, 1966-70, and codirector of its pilot study of the acquisition of com­municative competence by children in diverse sociocultural settings, 1966-69.

This article was written at the invitation of the President of the Council as part of the commemoration of its 50th anniversary year_

by Susan Ervin-Tripp *

structure with psychological methods, and the role of dialect in social class. Carroll and Charles E. Osgood, as an experimentalist interested in learning and sym­bolic processes, remained at the center of subsequent interdisciplinary activities organized by the Council's Committee on Linguistics and Psychology, appointed in 1952 as the aftermath of the 1951 seminar .

Over the ensuing decade this committee generated and sponsored a series of meetings. The first and most gen­eral of these was a Summer Research Seminar on Psy­cholinguistics, held in 1953 in conjunction with the annual Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America (in Bloomington, Indiana). The seminar had a tripartite conceptual framework: linguistics, informa­tion theory, and the "learning theorists' conception of language as a system of habits." The first fruit of the seminar was a monograph entitled Psycho linguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems,! prepared by the senior staff and graduate student participants. The survey extended areas touched on at the 1951 seminar in more complete programmatic and theoretical form. In some cases it provided insightful new views of old issues, and in the next decade research followed to realize the prospectus. A decade later the survey of problems was reissued, still not completely out of date.

On rereading this work, one is struck with an anomaly perhaps characteristic of integrative efforts at their in­ception. In almost every respect contemporary psycho­linguistics has overthrown its progenitors. One might

1 Indiana University Publications ill Anthropology and Linguistics. Memoir 10, edited by Charles E. Osgood and Thomas A. Sebeok, Oc­tober 1954; issued also as a supplement to the Journal of AbnOl'mal and Social Psychology, Vol. 49. No.4. October 1954.

I

argue that the very forces which led to the creation of the new field were brewing change in the parent fields. The psychology of learning dominant in the seminar was associationist; current psycholinguistics is more to be characterized as "cognitive," emphasizing the active, integrative operations of the mind. The dominant lin­guistics of the era was overthrown by N oam Chomsky and his successors. Information theory, in the version of the 1950's, ceased to have a strong influence when it was shown that grammar could not be accounted for by sequential probabilities. The great spurt of interest in psycholinguistics owed, of course, a good deal to the leadership of Chomsky, whose view that linguistics was an aspect of the science of the mind helped make issues central that linguists had once considered marginal.

While the theoretical statements of the 1950's were superseded, the committee had some major accomplish­ments that influenced the following decade. It succeeded in spotlighting a series of important issues which re­quired cross-disciplinary work. The labors of the com­mittee not only led people to think about these issues; they helped to legitimize them with funding agencies. The various conferences and projects brought scholars together in the discussion of problems which some of them are still studying after two decades. The practice of including student participants in conferences had some long-range consequences for training; among those listed as graduate students present at conferences one finds such subsequently productive scholars as Eric Len­neberg, Howard Maclay, Wick Miller, Ursula Bellugi, Thomas Bever, Sol Saporta, Jean Berko, and Wallace Lambert.

The subjects of conferences and seminars sponsored by the committee included a wide range: bilingualism, content analysis, association, meaning, style, linguistic universals, and aphasia. Four of these led to publi­cations: Trends in Content Analysis, Style in Language, Universals of Language, and Approaches to the Study of A phasia.2

A major project undertaken by the committee, with su pport from the Carnegie Corporation of N ew York, was the Southwest Project in Comparative Psycholin­guistics, launched under the directorship of Carroll in 1955, in an effort to test the Whorf hypothesis that lan­guage structure influences culture and thought. While only two of the studies undertaken in the project cast significant light on that theme, the project produced

2Ithiel de Sola Pool, ed., Trends ill Content Analysis, University of Illinois Press, 1959; Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language, Tech­nology Press, and John Wiley &: Sons, 1960; Joseph H. Greenberg, ed., Universals of Language, M.I.T. Press, 1963; Charles E. Osgood and Murray S. Miron, eds., Approflr;h("f to the Study of Aphasia, University of Illinois press, 19614,

numerous other valuable comparative studies, on synes­thesia, word associations, semantic differentials, bilin­gualism, color naming, and color discrimination.

By 1961, the Committee on Linguistics and Psycholo-gy could see that psycholinguistics was flourishing and. its mission had been accomplished, so it recommended that it be disbanded. An illustration of the ensuing growth of psycholinguistics is the conference, sponsored in 1961 by the Council's Committee on Intellective Processes Research, on the acquisition of language. The papers appeared in a monograph, which has been re­printed.s They are regarded as prime examples of a major area of psycholinguistics. The current Committee on Cognitive Research carries on this tradition in devel­opmental language studies.

In the development of psycholinguistics, the initiative had come from within psychology, perhaps because it was evident at that time that the psychological models derived from animal studies could not accommodate the problems of complex human behavior. The direction of the intellectual traffic in the relation of linguistics to the other social sciences began the opposite way. Anthro­pologists, of course, have always regarded language use as situated in community processes; their descriptions of rituals are prime examples of sequential discourse rules. But the initiative for establishment of the Committee on Sociolinguistics in 1963 came from linguists, spurred by Charles Ferguson of the former Committee on Lin-. guistics and Psychology. Then director of the Center for Applied Linguistics, Ferguson had written a classic work on code variation in societies, and was aware of policy decisions regarding language that many govern­ments were making with an inadequate research base. The original membership of the Committee on Socio­linguistics included senior scholars in sociology and lin­guistics, who were interested in cross-cultural and com­parative research, the language of social groups, and the relation of language to political integration.

The first major activity of the new committee was a Summer Research Seminar held in Bloomington in con­junction with a Linguistic Institute in 1964. The semi­nar brought together sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists to discuss a range of earlier work on languages in contact, linguistic indices of social stratification, and the relations of social and political change to the lin­guistic integration of societies. Papers prepared by the participants in the seminar were published in special issues of Sociological Inquiry on a variety of sociolin­guistic questions, and in an issue of the Journal of Social Issues on bilingualism, in subsequent years.

3 Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown, eds., The Acquisition of Lan- • guage, Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, "01. 29, No. I. 1964.

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1

During 1966-68 the committee sponsored two small conferences, on language problems in cross-cultural re­search, and on multilingualism and social change, in addition to two major conferences that resulted in pub-

•

Iication of Language Problems of Developing Nations nd Pidginization and Creolization of Languages:' The

focus of the first major conference was on societal issues. Developing nations are often multilingual. They must discover a lingua franca, standardize diversity, develop literacy, find means to communicate in schools, indus­tries, cities, political assemblies. Political decisions about language choice affect the power of competing groups, and affect unification, as the blood shed over language testifies. The second conference had as its focus a lin­guistic phenomenon. Pidgins arise in rather special so­cietal conditions, in multilingual situations where the languages are quite different, in conditions of marginali­ty which prevent the learning of the linguistic norms of a contact group. They provide the most vivid instance of communicative need generating a code, and provide an ongoing laboratory for the study of language genesis. Both conferences brought together scholars who had studied similar conditions in widely varying parts of the world, and defined a range of issues for collaboration between linguists and others.

Although sociolinguistics, as defined by the com­mittee focus, began with comparative issues, attention

anoved to linguistic problems of ethnic minorities and ~o sociolinguistic surveys. Surveys in New York, Wash­

ington, Detroit, and elsewhere were initiated independ­ently, but many of the scholars involved were members of the committee and it played a key role in stimulating the spread of such work and of panels reporting findings. The committee has recently helped in organizing a proj­ect on Chicano sociolinguistics, in this vein.

A third aspect of the committee's interest has been work on "microsociolinguistics" or the study of face-to­face interaction. A major pilot research project sup­ported by the committee was a cross-cultural study of the acquisition of communicative competence. The project had three foci: cross-linguistic study of se­mantic, phonological, and grammatical development in children in the tradition of earlier psycholinguistic studies of child language; the development of the social functions and social rules of language in children, or child sociolinguistics; and the ethnography of communi­cation, the study of the nexus of beliefs and practices regarding language which are the milieu of the child's language learning.

The project began with the development of a field

• 4 The first. edited by Joshua A. Fishman. Charles A. Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta, was published by John Wiley & Sons, 1968; the second, edited by Dell Hvmes, by Cambridge University Press, 1971.

MARCH 1974

manual by a cross-disciplinary faculty and student group in Berkeley, and the preparation of dissertations based on studies in Hungary, Finland, Samoa, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, and several California sites. Summer workshops sponsored by the committee in 1968, with the aid of National Science Foundation training funds, brought together 32 students and 7 field workers with faculty and visiting scholars for intensive study of the three problem areas. This work continues, in studies ongoing in Turkey, Yugoslavia, Italy, and the United States on more systematic acquisition questions.

This research in developmental psycholinguistics has yielded more knowledge of first-language acquisition, especially, than was previously available. It has shown that acquisition involves an orderly sequence, in which the order of mastery of a number of phonological, syn­tactical, and lexical elements-although not necessarily the age of mastery-is standard in children of normal social environments. This is true both within a particu­lar language and, given suitable comparisons, across a rather wide variety of languages from a number of dif­ferent language families. The work has also demon­strated particular aspects characteristic of specific lan­guages or linguistic environments.

Conferences explored problems of classroom com­munication, and issues in the ethnography of speaking. The latter conference included sessions on community ground rules, genres, scenes and roles, and the definition of speech community; the papers will soon be published in book form.1I Studies of these topics continue at the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and the University of Texas at Austin; working paper series foster inter­changes of findings.

Conversational analysis is undergoing rapid develop­ment. Initially the area was developed by sociologists. those called "ethnomethodologists"-Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Aaron Cicourel, primarily-who worked closely on the structure and presuppositions apparent in recorded texts of spontaneous interaction. John Gumperz has added attention to fine-grained lin­guistic features in signaling changes in social meaning.

A summary of the state of the field is well represented in the 1972 Georgetown University Round Table Meet­ing on Linguistics and Language Studies, which was co­sponsored by the committee and focused on the current state of sociolinguistics. Papers were presented on lan­guage planning, multilingualism, sociolinguistic sur­veys and investigations of variability in language through such means, conversational analysis, and the ethnography of speaking. These culminated in three

6 Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, eds., Explorations in the Eth ­nography Of Speahing, Cambridge University Press, June 1974.

3

volumes of reports.a Publication of two new journals has been initiated at the instigation of former or current committee members, the first, Language in Society) be­gun in response to committee urging. All these activities, including maintenance of a sociolinguistics correspon­dence list, have been stimulated by the commit.tee.

The joining of interests was first initiated within lin­guistics, because of concern with larger societal issues. Recently, linguists have begun to broaden their field to embrace new social considerations at the very threshold of syntax. Charles Fillmore, a new member of the com­mittee, with other linguists has been relating pragmatics to other traditional levels of language. These linguists, in the quest for rules that will solve some syntactic puzzles, have encountered discourse and the larger social con­text as systematic determinants of structural outcomes.

Dell Hymes, chairman of the Committee on Socio­linguistics from 1970 to 1973 and now cochairman with Allen Grimshaw, believes its work is only at the thresh­old of the major change it envisages. In his view socio­linguistics as a separate field will disappear, because there will be a "socially constituted linguistics." In this view language is just one means to social ends. His vision is not of collaboration between fields with es­sentially separate purposes, methods, and theories, but occasionally converging topics such as multilingualism

6 Roger W. Shuy, ed., Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects, Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 25; Roger W. Shuy and Ralph W. Fasold, eds., Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects; and Joan Rubin and Roger W. Shuy, cds., Language Planning: Current Issues and Research; Georgetown University Press, 1973.

and acculturation. He foresees a radical change in the perspective of those who study language. Indeed, at the 1973 Linguistic Institute sociologists taught conversa­tional analysis, and linguists set aside categorical rules to study variability and learn some statistics; the Inst.i­tute was centered on sociolinguistics.

Where do these two fields, psycholinguistics and socio­linguistics, stand at present? There are scholars who consider themselves and are regarded as specialists in each of these fields, and whose training in parent disci­plines gives credibility to both positions. There is signifi­cant overlap between the domains of the earlier Council committee and the current one, especially with respect to issues of acquisition, socialization, and semantic structure.

Many, like Hymes, deplore the existence of compound disciplines, and would rather see linguistics broaden its scope and presuppositions. Problems are now being studied that once were considered marginal. New theo­ries are being developed at all levels of study, and new types of formal rules are being discovered. The ground broken is so fresh that even undergraduate students find new knowledge in their term projects. The most persua­sive evidence of the radical interpenetration of disci­plines is the development of a generation of students who can discuss language without immediately revealing whether they are psychologists, linguists, anthropolo­gists, or sociologists. Whether or not universities hav. adapted their formal apparatus to these changes, by th development of new programs or departments, the stu­dents reflect the reality of the changed intellectual boundaries first envisaged by the SSRC committees.

RESEARCH ON SOCIAL BEHAVIOR: IMPACT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES

RESEARCH in the broad field of social behavior has been marked by steady progress in the sophistication of ques­tions asked and the precision of methods used to answer them. At its biological and physical boundaries it has produced Nobel Laureates (three European ethologists, Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch, as well as von

• The authors are members of the Council's board of directors who have long records of participation in Council activities in the field of social behavior. They prepared this article at the invitation of the Presi­dent of the Council, as part of the commemoration of the 50th anni­versary of its founding.

Mr. Smith, now Vice Chancellor - Social Sciences and Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was first associ­ated with the Council as a member of the research staff, 1945-46, of the committee appointed to analyze the experience of the Research Branch, Information and Education Division, ASF, in which he had served dur­ing World War II. He is a coauthor of The 4merican SoldieT, Vol. 2, Combat and Its Aftermath, produced under the committee's sponsol'-

by M. Brewster Smith and Gardner Lindzey *

Bekesy for his work in psychophysics), and it is not un­reasonable to expect that the future will bring compar­able recognition for one or more of the main body of social scientists who work on problems that are typical of research by the social psychologist, sociologist, anthro­pologist, and political scientist. Among these problems

ship. A recipient of a Demobilization Award under the Council's special postwar fellowship program, he spent the next year in graduate study for the Ph.D. in social psychology at Harvard University. In 1949 he became a member of the Council's new interdisciplinary Com­mittee on Political Behavior, on which he served until 1956. During 1952-56 he was a full-time member of the Council's professional staff. In that capacity he participated also in the work of the Committees on Social Behavior, on Personality Development, and on Cross-Cultural Education. In subsequent years he has been a member of the Commit­tee on Socialization and Social Structure, 1 960-{i7, and contributor its final report, Socialization and Society Gohn A. Clausen, ed., a director of the Council and member of the Committee on Problems

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1

are ·a number that have become matters of intense na­tional and international concern. Not surprisingly, many of these major currents in the stream of research on social behavior have flowed through Council committees, con-

•erences, and workshops, and their distinctive impact anges from the biological to the humanistic ends of the

social science continuum. One clear example of a powerful influence on the

domain of social behavior involves the zone of contact between modern linguistics and, first, psychology, then sociology. Here, as shown in the preceding report by Susan Ervin-Tripp, the Council's initiative seems so strong and distinctive that if one tries imaginatively to subtract the effects of the Council's participation, it is hard not to conclude that important scientific develop­ments would have been delayed or missed. Both psycho­linguistics and sociolinguistics were conceived, gestated, and nurtured under Council auspices. While the Com­mittee on Sociolinguistics continues to give leadership to work in its area, both fields have been launched on trajectories of their own, independent of Council spon­sorship.

Another example is the impact of the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology (1964- ), which under the leadership of Leon Festinger spread the laboratory­based and theoretically oriented experimental social psy­chology that had flowered in the United States after

Avorld War II to Western and even Eastern Europe. ~hrough training institutes and international confer­

ences, and through the broadening of its own member­ship, the committee played a major part in creating an organized European community of experimental social psychologists, who now are bringing an independent and divergent perspective to bear on the problems tha t American workers in this field had been addressing.

A third example of a distinctive contribution is asso-

and Policy since 1970, and a member of the Committee on Grants to Minority Scholars for Research on Racism and Other Social Factors in Mental Health since 1972.

Mr. Lindzey, now Vice-President and Dean of Graduate Studies and Professor of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, was first as­sociated with the Council as a participant in its 1953 Summer Institute in Mathematics. In 1956 at the request of the Committee on Social Behavior he undertook a critical review of the use of projective tech­niques that resulted in publication of his Projective Techniques and Cross-Cultural Research (1961). He received Grants-in-Aid from the Council in 1956 and 1957 for his research on selected personality vari­ables in interpersonal relations, and a grant for attendance at the Congress of the International Union of Scientific Psychology, 1960. During 1960-63 he was a member of the Committee on Faculty Research Fellowships. From 1961 to 1966 he was chairman of the new Committee on Genetics and Behavior; and he has continued as a member of its successor, the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior. Mr.

•

·ndzey has been a director of the Council since 1963. Appointed a mem­r of the Committee on Problems and Policy in that year, he served

as its chairman, 1965-70. In 1970 he was elected to the Executive Com­mittee, and has served as its chairman since 1971.

MARCH 1974

ciated with the field of behavioral genetics, which in 1961-at the time that the Committee on Genetics and Behavior was formed-included no more than a dozen or so disparate investigators. There is little doubt that the committee, through its activities to be described sub­sequently, has played a major role in the development of what has become a significant interdisciplinary specialty, with its own scientific society, journal, graduate pro­grams, and the like.

More typical, however, is the influence of Council committees as important channels through which lead­ing psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have carried forward work on the problems of their disci­plines, and particularly on problems that cut across dis­ciplinary boundaries. Five lines of work that have fig­ured prominently in Council activities over the years are reviewed briefly below: personality development in its cultural and social context, cognitive development, the biological bases of social behavior, studies intended to have relatively immediate social relevance or utility, and the development of appropriate and more powerful research methods.

PERSONALITY IN SOCIETY AND CULTURE

The Committee on Personality and Culture (1930-40), which was chaired for much of its tenure by Mark May and involved luminaries of the time like Sapir, Linton, Redfield, Herskovits, Woodworth, Thomas, Sel­lin, and Burgess, helped to formulate and give direction to research conceived within the "culture and personal­ity" intellectual movement that extended over the 1930's and 1940's. Through subcommittees advising specially commissioned projects, the committee left works of en­during value in its wake that shaped for the time the study of acculturation, delinquency, and cooperative­competitive "habits."

A successor Committee on Social Adjustment (1940-47), chaired by Burgess, tilled much the same interdis­ciplinary ground, with newly emerging problems in view. Three decades later, two products are especially memorable: R. R. Sears' Survey of Objective Studies of Psychoanalytic Concepts (Council Bulletin 51, 1943), prepared for the Subcommittee on Motivation, a first step toward bringing the Freudian theories that were then capturing the attention of psychologists under sci­entific scrutiny; and R. S. Woodworth's Heredity and Environment (Council Bulletin 47, 1941), prepared in connection with the committee's responsibility for ad­vising a study of foster children, which framed the per­ennial issues of nature vs. nurture with a sophistication seldom attained again in the ensuing decades and only recently superseded. Both volumes have been reprinted

5

many times. Other topics explored in depth with the guidance of subcommittees were the prediction of social adjustment (a topic for methodological critique and de­velopment, under the direction of S. A. Stouffer) and social adjustment in old age.

In 1951 a new Committee on Social Behavior was formed under the chairmanship of L. S. Cottrell, Jr., with the explicit intent of carrying forward work in the area previously tended by the Committee on Social Ad­justment, where the concerns of psychology, sociology, and anthropology overlap. This committee organized conferences and encouraged summer seminars focusing research issues on a variety of topics, including interper­sonal communication and influence, public communica­tion, community studies, and social integration. It soon developed a primary concern with the socialization of the child, and a commitment to developing a systematic cross-cultural approach to understanding the sociali­zation process. As John Whiting, chairman of the Sub­committee on Socialization that was appointed in 1952, argued persuasively, only through cross-cultural studies of personality development could wide variation in so­cialization variables be disentangled from deviance with respect to normative practices in a particular culture. The subcommittee, reconstituted in 1954 as the Com­mittee on Personality Development, participated in the planning and revision of a field manual for the collec­tion of systematic observational data, which was em­ployed in a coordinated study of child rearing in six cultures. In its reliance on quantitative methods, this landmark research involving mainly anthropologists and psychologists contrasted with the more qualitative and clinical orientation of the former "culture and person­ality" studies.

Once again in 1960 another beginning was made. This time sociologists and psychologists were primarily in­volved, in the Commi~tee on Socialization and Social Structure, chaired by J. A. Clausen. A program of con­ferences, commissioned papers, and small local work­groups supported on university campuses fed into the seminar-like discussions of the committee itself, culmi­nating in a benchmark volume, Socializ.ation and Society (edited by Clausen, 1968) in which the members of the committee sought to communicate their jointly achieved new perspectives on socialization research. The family, the school, and the institutions of the community at large were examined as contexts for socialization, understood by the committee as also extending into adult life and maturity. Moral development, a newly active research topic that was the subject of a productive conference under committee auspices, was seen as posing a challeng­ing problem for competing theories of personality devel­opment and socialization. The committee established

6

good communication with those doing relevant research in Germany, Israel, France, and England.

This sequence of interrelated, cyclical research plan­ning activity under the guidance of Council committees reaches the present through the appointment in 1972 o. a Committee on Work and Personality in the Middl Years, under the chairmanship of O. G. Brim, Jr., who had been a member of the Committee on Socialization and Social Structure. Like the earlier committee, the new one conceives of socialization as a lifelong process. It proposes a program to stimulate research on personali-ty in the neglected middle years. Clearly there is no end to this iterative process, in which new interdisciplinary combinations of social scientists seek to clarify the prob­lems then emerging as promising for research, and to lay the basis for next steps.

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

We have seen that personality and personality devel­opment have been recurrent foci of attention through most of the Council's history. Research interest in the cognitive development of children came much later. Appropriately, the first in a series of published proceed­ings of conferences sponsored by the Committee on In­tellective Processes Research (1959-64) dealt with Pia­get's contributions to the understanding of cognitive development in relation to other theories. It was th impact of Piaget's work, more than anything else, tha catalyzed the new interest in cognitive development. This committee, chaired successively by Roger Brown and William Kessen, in which developmental psycholo­gists predominated but anthropologists also participated, played an important part in giving coherence as well as forward thrust to the burst of research in this rapidly growing area. Published conference reports on such topics as language acquisition in children, mathematical learning, learning to read, and transcultural studies of cognitive systems were benchmarks of progress. Through its conferences the committee also strengthened the international network of scholarly communication es­sential to rapid growth.

Beginning in 1962, the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process (whose chairmen included L. J. Cronbach and W. H. Holtzman) pursued a complemen­tary program of conferences and publications centering on the educational processes that foster learning and cognitive development. The topics ranged from pre­school learning and early education to learning by dis­covery, computer-assisted instruction, and compensatory education. Aimed especially at improving the quality o. educational research, this committee's concerns over lapped those of the Committee on Intellective Processes

VOLUME 28, NUMBER I

Research, but involved a different clientele. This com­mittee also developed lines of communication with research in Europe.

A new generation of workers in cognitive research has

•

been emerging in this still very active field, with con­tinued interests in developmental aspects but with broader interests as well. As a consequence the newly fonned interdisciplinary Committee on Cognitive Re­search (1972- ) has developed an ambitious proposed program of research seminars and small conferences to advance research on challenging topics.

BIOLOGICAL BASES OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Two decades after publication of Woodworth's He­,.edity and Environment, already noted, Council atten­tion to biological factors in social behavior was renewed with the appointment in 1961 of the Committee on Genetics and Behavior. Behavior genetics was emerging as a scientifically promising and humanly impoI'tant field; few social scientists were equipped, however, to work in it. In the committee's plans to facilitate com­munication between geneticists and social scientists and to promote research in this interdisci plinary area, there­fore, the committee gave high priority to providing basic biological training for social scientists. It and the Com­mittee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior (1966- )

• -its successor with broadened charter-sponsored a number of summer training institutes that substantially extended the biological competence of able young social scientists: on behavior genetics for social scientists and for developmental psychologists, on population genetics for social scientists, on neurobiology and psychophysi­ology. Its strategy in this "compensatory" training was guided by a major conference on biological training for social scientists. Several substantive conferences in the area of behavior genetics have led to published volumes. A monograph surveying research and policy questions concerning the delicate questions surrounding racial­ethnic differences in measured perfonnance is now near­ing completion.

After a dozen years, it is clear that the work of these committees has helped notably to reduce the traditional parochialism of social science; to advance a Zeitgeist that sees the interdependence of biological and social factors in more balanced perspective; and to stimulate research on a difficult and controversial new frontier.

PROJECTS WITH RELATIVELY IMMEDIATE SOCIAL RELEVANCE

• Most of the Council's activities in the area of social behavior were aimed mainly at the advancement of so-

MARCH 1974

cial science, with the reasonable expectation that better social science will prove to be socially more useful in the long run. Some of the Council's efforts were never­theless directly concerned with pressing social problems, as two examples from the immediate postwar years and one from the present will serve to illustrate.

With the advice of an interdisciplinary committee, R. M. Williams, Jr. was commissioned to review and organize the existing literature on intergroup tension and conflict and how these might be abated. His result­ing report, published as Council Bulletin 57, The Re­duction of Intergroup Tensions: A Survey of Research on Problems of Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Group Relations (1947), not only provided a timely organiza­tion of existing knowledge and hypotheses; it ventured predictions and policy suggestions that might have eased some of the social strains to which the United States has been subjected, had they been more widely heeded.

In a similar venture, Otto Klineberg was commis· sioned shortly thereafter to make a critical study of social science contributions to the understanding of international tensions, a topic then of central interest to the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO. His report, Council Bulletin 62, Tensions Affecting Inter­national Understanding: A SU1"Vey of Research (1950) provided a scholarly appraisal of the evidence bearing on this continuing problem .

In 1973 a new interdisciplinary Committee on Tele­vision and Social Behavior was appointed to plan and stimulate research in response to public and govern­mental concern with TV violence. In its initial plans, the committee expects to be responsive to this imme­diate concern while attentive to the problems posed for research by the wider range of likely effects of this pervasive mass medium.

DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH METHODS

The advancement of knowledge of social behavior re­quires better methods for its study. Most of the lines of substantive Council concern with social behavior that have been touched on above include attention to the criticism, development, and improvement of research methods, where very substantial progress indeed is evi­dent during the past half century. In one important area, sampling and attitude measurement in survey re­search, the Council played a major role.

Near the very beginning of the systematic attempt to measure attitudes, the Council formed a Special Techni­cal Committee on the Measurement of Attitudes and Public Opinion (1928-30) under the chairmanship of L. L. Thurstone. A long-lived committee, joint with the National Research Council, on the Measurement of

7

Opinion, Attitudes and Consumer Wants (1945-54) brought leading academic and commercial opinion re­searchers and statisticians together under the chairman­ship of S. A. Stouffer to plan and promote intensive study of methodological problems in the field. A number of basic studies of sampling methods, interviewer effects, and panel methods were conducted and published under its auspices. "Studies in Social Psychology in World War II" (1949-50)-the series including the two volumes of The American Soldier prepared by Stouffer and others under the auspices of a special Council committee­made further large contributions to the technology of survey research, in the course of reporting reanalyses of the wartime studies by the Research Branch, Informa­tion and Education Division, ASF. When the pre-election polls of 1948 dramatically failed to pick the winner in the Truman-Dewey contest, a Council committee was appointed to review the evidence made available by the principal polling agencies and attempt to identify the many sources of error. The resulting publication, Coun­cil Bulletin 60, The Pre-election Polls of 1948, was a sub­stantial contribution to survey methodology, which es­tablished solidly the requirement of probability sam­pling for serious scientific or political surveys, and has had an 'Obvious impact upon survey research in subse­quent years. A Committee on Scaling Theory and Methods (1950-57), chaired by Harold Gulliksen, spon­sored fundamental research on issues of measurement shared by social psychology and psychophysics, which

resulted in W. S. Torgerson's Theo'l"y and l\IIelhods of Scaling (1958).

The methodological problems involved in social ex­periments have been examined most recently by the Committee on Experimentation as a Method for Plan- • ning and Evaluating Social Intervention. A forthcoming volume reviews the technical problems of approximating true experiments and the managerial, political, and in­stitutional issues that must be resolved if social experi­ments are to serve a useful purpose.

Quantitative methods for analyzing causation with non experimental data have also been developed through conferences under Council auspices. Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences, edited by A. S. Goldberger and O. D. Duncan, was published in 1973; it contains papers using causal inference in such areas as occupa­tional achievement, educational attainment, and Con­gressional voting.

This brief survey of a half century of Council activi­ties in the area of research on social behavior is neces­sarily incomplete. Nonetheless, the reader could reason­ably conclude that many of the most important currents of research on social behavior during this period have flowed through the Council and its committees. Surely there have been cumulative gains, especially in the sophistication of research questions and methods; but in some areas the Council has only exemplified the shifting state of the field, while in others it has given notable leadership that has surely made a difference. •

THE CHINESE ECONOMY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:

DURING the past two decades economists have tended to ignore China's economic experience prior to 1949, while economic historians have been reluctant to pierce the 1949 barrier from the opposite direction. This mutual isolation has begun to break down in recent years, but most economists have continued to assume that the China of the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen­turies was "poor and blank," a tabula rasa on which the

• The author is Professor of Economics and Associate Director of the East Asian Research Center, Harvard University. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy, he organized and served as chairman of the conference on which he reports here. The other members of the subcommittee, Robert Dernberger, University of Michigan; Albert Feuenverker, University of Michigan; John G. Gurley, Stanford University; K. C. Yeh, Rand Corporation; and staff, David L. Sills, also attended the conference. The other participants were Kang Chao, University of Wisconsin; Alexander Eckstein, University of Michi­gan; Mark Elvin, University of Oxford; John C. H. Fei, Yale University;

8

REPORT ON A CONFERENCE by Dwight H. Perkins *

leaders of the Chinese Communist Party could construct any economic model they pleased. Historians never ac­cepted the "poor and blank" image, but few ventured forth with explicit connections between the pre- and post-1949 economies.

The Conference on the Chinese Economy in Histori­cal Perspective-sponsored on June 18-19, 1973 by the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy, of

Robert M. Hartwell, University of Pennsylvania; Albert Keidel, Har­vard University; Paul W. Kuznets, Indiana University; Simon Kuznets, Harvard University; Ramon H. Myers, University of Miami; Thomas G. Rawski, University of Toronto; Bruce Reynolds, University of Michi­gan; Carl Riskin, Columbia University; Peter Schran, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Yeh-chien Wang, Kent State University.

The conference was supported by funds made available by the Ford • Foundation for the program of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China. The papers prepared for the conference are being edited by its chairman for publication by the Stanford University Press.

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1

the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, Ameri­can Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Re­search Council-was designed to speed up the removal of this barrier. Although less than complete agreement

•

:was achieved on many important points, the results of he conference will appear to many as strongly revision­

ist in tone. Certainly many of the standard assumptions about Chinese economic growth (or the lack of it) in the twentieth century did not stand up well when analyzed in depth. Thus, for example, available evidence suggests that handicrafts may not have declined at all prior to the 1940's and certainly were not as depressed as most contemporary writers implied. And per capita income does not appear to have declined during the decades of the twentieth century prior to the Japanese attack in 1937.

Three major questions predominated in the confer­ence papers and discussion. Several of the early sessions were devoted to discussion of what had held back eco­nomic progress in China before the 1949 revolution. Were foreigners and foreign intervention to blame or, as one paper put it, was foreign involvement in China a necessary if not a sufficient condition for China's en­trance into modern economic growth? Certainly, little dynamism seemed to be left in China's traditional econo­my in the first half of the twentieth century. Indige­nous technological innovation had largely ceased after

•he thirteenth century; and agriculture, the principal ector, was approaching a high-level equilibrium with

the opening up of the last available arable land and the exhaustion of the potential of traditional techniques.

If there was little dynamism remaining in the tradi­tional economy, why did it take Chinese governments and entrepreneurs so long to take advantage of the new technology available from Europe and America? Net investment in the Chinese economy prior to 1949 was negligible, but this was not because China was caught in a vicious circle of poverty, too poor to save and hence to invest. One paper estimated the total potential "sur­plus" to be roughly 37 percent of net domestic product, and tapping this surplus allowed the Communists to raise both the rate of investment and per capita con­sumption. Prior to 1949, these surplus funds had been expended largely on consumption by the well-to-do.

If both capital and modern technology were poten­tially available before 1949, China's failure to develop must be attributable to the nation's governmental and social structure and to the values and experiences of the people. Few participants in the conference disputed the limitations of China's pre-1949 government and the so-

•ial structure that reinforced it, but there was much ess agreement about the nature and effects of the values

of traditional Chinese society and the skills of its people.

MARCH 1974

As one essay pointed out, many aspects of the tradition made large numbers of Chinese not only literate but gave them experience with complex organizations, as well as with markets, and with intricate technologies. As a result, even in the nineteenth century Chinese busi­nessmen were formidable competitors of foreigners in the treaty ports. And today in Southeast Asia Chinese minorities, and to a significant degree only the Chinese minorities, are fostering an area-wide economic boom. Thus there was much in the tradition that encouraged modern economic growth. All values did not have to be swept aside before progress was possible.

A second major theme of the conference was that China did experience considerable economic change and modernization prior to 1949, but not enough to raise per capita income significantly or to modernize the economic life of more than a small fraction of the population. By 1949, however, China did have a large modern textile industry and even the beginning of a machine-building sector completely managed and operated by Chinese. In fact, most of the increase in industrial output prior to 1958 came not from new plants, but from the rehabilitation and enhanced pro­ductivity of enterprises built during the first four dec­ades of the twentieth century.

The standard analyses of the Chinese economic ex­perience of the 1950's and 1960's conclude that the Peo­ple's Republic began by attempting to emulate the Stalinist model of economic growth and, increasingly dissatisfied with the results, moved to a more Maoist or at least more Chinese model. There is much truth in this standard picture, but this formulation neglects the fact that many features of Chinese development in both the 1950's and the 1960's reflected not so much delib­erate policy as an underlying economic heritage. Thus, the rapid growth in the share of industry relative to the share of agriculture in national product continued unabated in both periods, in spite of a major shift in Chinese investment priorities toward agriculture in the early 1960's. A likely explanation is that even a major shift in priorities could not offset the effects of an inherited labor-surplus land-short factor endowment. In fact, much the same pattern also prevails in other large labor-surplus land-short, but nonsocialist, econo­mies such as Japan and South Korea.

The third theme of the conference was that even the peculiarly socialist features of Chinese economic institu­tions after the revolution owed something to the past. This was clearly true of the size and structure of rural communes, which had to be related to the existing village-market town structure, which in turn had evolved out of a need to limit transport costs while taking ad­vantage of specialization and economies of scale. And

9

cooperation within and between families, particularly on water control projects, was nothing new to rural China, although it was carried out on a vastly increased scale after 1949. Finally, it was not just the traditional heritage that shaped some Chinese policies and institu­tions after 1949. The Chinese Communist Party had in its own past rich experience in wartime Xenan, one of the most backward areas of China, the inspiration for many of the policies of the late 1950's and 1960's.

The conference, of course, did not conclude that all aspects of China's post-1949 economic performance could be traced back to an earlier period. In fact, the effort to relate the present to the past placed in bold relief some of the enormous changes that have occurred. In a few years, China's rate of capital formation rose from negligible levels to one of the highest rates any­where in countries with per capita incomes of under $500 (U.S.). Whereas before 1949 only the Japanese seemed capable of building and operating steel mills in China, after 1949 large mills were soon both built and operated by Chinese in many parts of the country.

However, it is in the area of income distribution that

China has departed furthest from its own past and from the experience of most other less developed countries. By the late 1950's, China had only begun to modernize its economy, but it had confiscated the income of most of the rich and redistributed it to investment and t. the poor. This move, together with the rationing 0

basic food and clothing, effectively eliminated the ex­treme forms of poverty so apparent to all before 1949. All of this was accomplished without a significant rise in national per capita consumption.

Perhaps the major accomplishment of the conference was not in the specific conclusions reached or the hy­potheses tested. For nearly a decade economists working on the Chinese economy have been increasingly frus­trated by the partial blackout of Chinese statistics and by the rapidly diminishing intellectual returns from the rehashing of data from the 1950's. Although the black­out is slowly beginning to lessen, the conference clearly brought home to most participants that economists have only scratched the surface of the Chinese experience, broadly conceived, and that there are large quantities of data on which to base new research.

G. WILLIAM SKINNER AND CHINESE BIBLIOGRAPHY PRODUCED UNDER HIS DIRECTION HONORED AT SSRC LUNCHEON

G. WILLIAM SKINNER, Professor of Anthropology, Stan­ford University, was honored at a luncheon given by the Social Science Research Council on January 24, 1974, to celebrate the publication of the three-volume analytical bibliography, Modern Chinese Society.l This publica­tion provides social scientists, historians, and, indeed, all scholars for the first time with a comprehensive and sys­tematically analyzed list of works on China published since 1644 in all languages and from all disciplines.

Work on the bibliography was initiated ten years ago in accordance with plans developed by Skinner, under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Research on Chi-

1 Present at the luncheon were: Florence Anderson, Carnegie Corpora­tion of New York; William L. Bradley, Edward W. Hazen Foundation; Frederick Burkhardt, American Council of Learned Societies: Victor Chen, New Yorker; Frank Ching, New York Times; Albert Feuerwerker, University of Michigan; David Finkelstein, Ford Foundation; Ta Chun Hsu, Starr Foundation; Patrick G. Maddox, Social Science Research Council; Norman Mann, Social Science Research Council; Russell A. Phillips, Jr., Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Nathan M. Pusey, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; Benjamin I. Schwartz, Harvard University; Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, Social Science Research Council; David L. Sills, Social Science Research Council; G. William Skinner, Stanford University; Tai Tseng-yi, Hsinhua News Agency; Shigeaki Tomita, United Nations Fund for Population Activities; Martha Wallace, Henry Luce Founda­tion; Edwin A. Winckler, Columbia University; Sophie Sa Winckler; Bryce Wood, Emergency Committee to Aid Latin American Scholars; and Eugene Wu, Harvard-Yenching Institute.

10

nese Society appointed by the Council. "Professor Skin. ner's achievement is a major landmark in scholarship," said Eleanor Sheldon, the Council's President, "not just for those who will find it indispensable, but for the innovative concepts and technology employed in its preparation."

The bibliography is published by Stanford University Press in three volumes:

Publications in Western Languages, 1644-1972, Vol­ume I, edited by G. William Skinner;

Publications in Chinese, 1644-1969, Volume 2, edited by G. William Skinner and Winston Hsieh;

Publications in Japanese, 1644-1971, Volume 3, ed­ited by G. William Skinner and Shigeaki Tomita.

Their 2,300 pages contain 31,441 entries in English, Chinese, and Japanese. In order to prepare the bibli­ography, approximately 90,000 titles were compiled and then located in libraries throughout the world and eval­uated by the project's 120 trained annotators.

Financial support for the preparation and publication of the bibliography was provided by the following foun­dations and other organizations: Carnegie Corporation of New York; East Asian Institute, Columbia univer. sity; Council on Library Resources; Ford Foundation including funds contributed by the Joint Committee on

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1

Contemporary China; Harvard-Yenching Institute; Ed­ward W. Hazen Foundation; IBM Corporation; London­Cornell Project, Cornell University; Henry Luce Foun­dation; Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; National

•

Endowment for the Humanities; National Science Foundation; Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Social Science Research Council; Stanford University, including the Center for East Asian Studies, the Center for Research in International Studies, and the Hoover Institution; and the Starr Foundation.

At the luncheon brief remarks were made by the guest of honor and by Eleanor Sheldon, Eugene Wu, Ben­jamin I. Schwartz, and Albert Feuerwerker, chairman of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China of the ACLS and SSRC. In commenting on the bibliography,

the latter said, "Undoubtedly these three volumes will do a great deal to achieve their editors' aim: to bring the Chinese experience closer to the mainstream of social science."

The publication of Modern Chinese Society is de­signed to combat the tendency of social scientists and historians studying China and its society to remain iso­lated in discrete communities bounded by language, political alignment, and discipline. Skinner conceived the bibliography from the outset as ignoring these arti­ficial boundaries, admitting works in all languages and disciplines by scholars of all political persuasions. As he wrote in the "Preface," it is hoped that the bibliography will "bring Chinese society fully within the range of comparative and general studies, where it belongs."

MODERN JAPANESE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: A CONFERENCE REPORT

WITH THE ASSISTANCE of the Joint Committee on Japa­nese Studies, of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, a small conference on the history of modem Japanese interna­tional relations was held in Tokyo on June 1-4, 1973. The purpose of the conference was to bring together American and Japanese scholars to clarify the basic

• ideas and attitudes toward international politics that underlie policy decisions. Participants were instructed to prepare broad, speculative essays that would stimulate fresh insights and promote comparative analysis.1 Since each part,icipant could speak in the language most con­venient for him and be understood by all others without resort to interpreters, the exchange of ideas was facili­tated.

Conference discussions focused on two broad sets of problems. The first was methodological: How does one analyze the attitudinal substructure of a nation's foreign policy? Indiv·idual authors offered very different re­sponses to that question. Their analytical methods

• The author is Assistant Professor of History, University of South­ern California. and National Fellow. Hoover Institution. He developed the plans for the conference on which he reports here with Seizaburo Sato, Professor of Political Science and Japanese Politics, Tokyo Uni­versity. They served as cochairmen of the conference. and are editing the papers for publication in both English and Japanese.

1 Papers were presented by the cochairmen of the conference and by the following other participants: Junji Banno. Ochanomizu University; Gordon Berger, University of Southern California; Marlene Mayo. Uni­versity of Maryland; Taichiro Mitani. Tokyo University; Shumpei Okamoto. Temple University; Stephen Pelz. University of Massachu­setts; and Akio Watanabe. Meiji University. The discussants were: Peter

•

Duus, Stanford University; Shinkichi Eto. Tokyo University; Carol Gluck. Columbia University; Kenichi Hirano. Jochi University; Chihiro Hosoya. Hitotsubashi University; and Takafusa Nakamura. Tokyo University.

MARCH 1974

by Roger Dingman •

ranged from traditional historical narrative to quantita­tive content analysis, from close textual examination of diplomatic documents to biographical and psychological interpretation of decisions. This diversity forced each participant to justify his mode of analysis and prompted questions about the validity and relationship of one methodology to another. The group concluded that it would be impossible and unwise to try to construct a single analytical model. Participants decided, on the contrary, that methodological diversity would in itself prove more enlightening and instructive.

The second set of issues was more clearly historical and addressed four very broad questions: What were the basic Japanese attitudes toward international politics? From what sources did they originate? How did they change and relate to one another? And, finally, to what degree were these attitudes uniquely Japanese?

The participants readily identified ambiguity as the quality central to Japanese foreign policy attitudes. The papers described the tension that exists between the sense of being geographically and culturally peripheral and the conviction of centrality; betwen passivity and assertiveness; between insecurity and confidence; and between cooperation and competition.

While it was difficult to identify the sources of this ambiguity, participants agreed that at least three major factors contributed to it. The first was the recurrent instability of Japan's international environment. The nation was caught in the nineteenth-century conflict between the traditional Chinese world order and the ad­vancing Western international system. In the twentieth century Japan became enmeshed in the struggle among the forces of imperialism, nationalism, and communism.

11

This conflict and tension was bound to produce diver­gent attitudes toward Japan's role in international politics.

The second source of ambiguity was intellectual and cultural. Notions of "modernization" and "East-West conflict" coexisted, as did ideas of universal progress and movement toward international conflict. Some partici­pants stressed the cultural sources of this ambiguity. They pointed out the contrast between ideals of har­mony and unity at home and the concept of competitive, balance-of-power politics prevalent in the international political system.

All agreed that subjective feelings of individual leaders constituted a third major source of ambiguity. Several essays stressed the alternation of feelings of insecurity

and uneasiness wilh confidence and even arrogance in the minds of major statesmen, financiers, and military and naval leaders.

How these attitudes and their sources related to one another was the subject of much discussion. The recur­rence of certain very general notions, such as hostility to

foreign opinions, concern for Japan's position in a real Or imagined international hierarchy, and determination to transcend the limitations imposed by foreign develop­ment, struck all who took part.

The last question-whether or not, and to what de­gTee, the attitudes and patterns uncovered were uniquely Japanese-proved the most difficult of all. On this point conference participants, like other students of Japanese history and society, came to no definite conclusion.

•

PERSONNEL COUNCIL STAFF

Louis Wolf Goodman joined the Council on a part-time basis on February 6, and will become a full-time staff mem­ber on September 1, 1974. His primary assignment is as staff, in association with others, of the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies and of the Dissertation Fellowship Selection Committee for the Latin American and Caribbean Program. Mr. Goodman received the B.A. degree from Dart­mouth College in 1964 and the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in sociology from Northwestern University in 1966 and 1970, respectively. He began his research career as an under­graduate in 1963 as a research assistant for the Social Prog­ress Trust Fund of the Inter-American Development Bank. As a graduate student, his research experience included work with Raymond W. Mack in research on social effects of advertising in the United States and with Robert F. Winch in research on marriage and the family. His disserta­tion research, on the impact of industrialization on Chilean blue-collar workers, was carried out during his tenure of a Foreign Area Fellowship under the joint program of the SSRC and ACLS, 1967-69. While a Fellow in Santiago, Chile, he also taught sociology and served as Survey Director for dissertation research at the Latin American Faculty of the Social Sciences. In 1969 Mr. Goodman joined the Yale University faculty as Assistant Professor of Sociology. He also has been associated with the Yale Law School as a Rus­sell Sage Fellow and a Law and Modernization Fellow, 1970-72. In 1970-71 he was Field Director of the Compara­tive Sociology Summer Research Project in the Caribbean. Since 1972 he has been engaged in field research on decision making in multinational corporations in Latin America, partly supported by a grant from the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, and directing a study of the role of foreign medical graduates in the American medical system. Mr. Goodman is the author of chapters in two volumes, of which he is also coeditor: with Robert F. Winch, Selected Studies in Mm'riage and the Family (1968) and with Stanley

12

M. Davis, Wm'ken and Managers in Latin America (1972); he has published a number of articles in scholarly journals,

RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS

The Committee on Social Science Personnel-Karl E. Taeuber (chairman), John M. Darley, J. David Greenstone, Philip J. Greven, Jr., Paul Kay, Edward J. Mitchell, and Karen Spalding-at its meeting on March 22-23, 1974 voted to offer the following 12 appointments, 1 predoctoral and II postdoctoral:

L. Douglas Dobson, Assistant Professor of Political Science, • Northern Illinois University, postdoctoral fellowship for study at the University of Chicago of mathematical models in the social sciences

Catharine D. G. Faust, Ph.D. candidate in American civili­zation, University of Pennsylvania, postdoctoral fellmv­ship for training at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania in anthro­pological and sociological theories of the nature of belief systems

John Michael Grey, Ph.D. candidate in psychology, Stan­ford University, postdoctoral fellowship for training at Stanford University and the University of California, San Diego, in research on the perceptual and cognitive processing of music

Lawrence Hubert, Assistant Professor of Educational Psy­chology, University of Wisconsin, postdoctoral fellowship for advanced training in the techniques of cluster analy­sis and related methodologies

Patricia Kelleher, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Wisconsin, predoctoral fellowship for training in demog­raphy and ecology

Patricia Giles Leeds, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Wisconsin, postdoctoral fellowship for ad­vanced training in mathematics, statistics, and economics

David Lelyveld, Instructor in History, University of Minne­sota, postdoctoral fellowship for training at the University of California, Berkeley, in psycho- and sociolinguistics

Jonathan Pool, Assistant Professor of Political Science, State • University of New York at Stony Brook, postdoctoral fel­lowship for training at McGill University in research in cross-cultural psycholinguistics

VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1

Judith Shapiro, Assistant Professor of An.thropolo&y,. Uni­versity of Chicago, post?oct~ral fellows!up fo; tr~mm~ ~t the University of Cahforma, San DIego, m ImgUlstlc analysis, sociolinguistics, and ethnosemantics

.-\nna Fay Vaughn-Cooke, Ph.D. candidate in sociolingui,­tics, Georgetown University, postdoctoral fellowship for training at Boston University in psycholinguistics

K. Lee Williams, Ph.D. candidate in developmental psy­chology, Harvard Unversity, postdoctoral fellowship for research training at Massachusetts Institute of Tec1mol­ogy in infant speech-related auditory perception

Richard Wortman, Associate Professor of History, Univer­sity of Chicago, postdoctoral fellowship for training in psychological and anthropological methods of research on child rearing and socialization

GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Aristide R. Zolberg (chairman), Sara S. Berry, Charles S. Bird, Sekene Mody Cissoko, B. J. Dudley, James W. Fernandez, Jean Herskovits, William A. Shack, and Edward W. Soja-at its meeting on March 9-10, 1974 awarded 12 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara:

Ronald H. Chilcote, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California, Riverside, for research in Co­nakry on Guine-Bissau: the impact of revolutionary strug­gle on two African generations

Jonathan A. Friedman, Lecturer in Social Anthropology, . University College London, for research in Madagascar

on structural variation in Southeast Madagascar: ecology,

•

economy, and social structure among the Antanosy Larry M. Hyman, Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Univer­

sity of Southern California, for research in Bamenda on the development of the noun class and tone systems of the "Semi-Bantu" languages in Western Cameroon

Bennetta Jules-Rosette, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of California, San Diego, for research in Zam­bia on a Christian community in transition

Martin A. Klein, Associate Professor of History, University of Toronto, for research in Senegal on servile social rela­tionships in French West Africa

Paul E. Lovejoy, Assistant Professor of History, York Uni­versity, for research in Nigeria on the economic growth of the central Sudan, 1700-1900

B. G. Martin, Associate Professor of History, Indiana Uni­versity, for research in Turkey, Iran, and Africa on Islam in coastal East Africa

John Pemberton, 3rd, Professor of Religion, Amherst Col­lege, for research in Nigeria on the myths, shrines, rituals, and artifacts of the Yoruba cult of Eshu-Elegba in Ila­Orangun

Paul Riesman, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Carle­ton College, for research in Upper Volta on early child­hood, personality, and values among West African former slaves

Maynard W. Swanson, Associate Professor of History, Miami University, for research in Great Britain and South Africa on the black leader A. W. G. Champion (1893- ): African

• urbanization and rising political consciousness

Marina Tolmacheva (Ph.D. in African ethnography), Se­attle, Washington, for research in Tanzania on the appli-

MARCH 1974

cation of antluopological models to the medieval Arabic­Swahili historical sources

Marcia W'right, Associate Professor of History, Columbia University, for research in Tanzania on the social history of the Central African Lakes Region, 1850-1900

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY AND REPUBLICAN CHINA

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Albert Feuerwerker (chairman), Myron Cohen, Philip A. Kuhn, John Wilson Lewis, Dwight H. Perkins, James R. Town­send, Tang Tsou, and Ezra F. Vogel-at its meeting on March 1-2 awarded 13 grants for research:

Gordon A. Bennett, Assistant Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin, for research in the United States and Hong Kong on the politics of the Chinese finance-trade system

Joseph W. Esherick, Assistant Professor of History, Univer­sity of Oregon, for research on social change and rural revolution in modern China

Susan Mann Jones, postdoctoral fellow in Chinese civiliza­tion, American Council of Learned Societies, for research on the Ningpo community at Shanghai, 1900-1925: the role of native-place ties in urban modernization

Arthur M. Kleinman, clinical fellow in psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, for a comparative study in Taiwan and Hong Kong of the interaction between traditional and modern medicine and psychiatry in contemporary Chi­nese societies

Leo Ou-fan Lee, Assistant Professor of History and East Asian Studies, Princeton University, for psychohistorical research in Japan on Lu Hstin

Julia C. Lin, Associate Professor of English, Ohio Univer­sity, for research in Hong Kong on contemporary Chinese poetry: a critical evaluation

Pichon P. Y. Loh, Professor of Political Science and East Asian History, Upsala College, for research on aspects of the politics of Chiang Kai-shek in relation to the political development of Kuomintang China

Harvey W. Nelsen, Assistant Professor, Department of Inter­disciplinary Social Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, for research in Hong Kong and Taiwan on the contemporary Chinese People's Liberation Army

John E. Schrecker, Associate Professor of History, Brandeis University, for research on the reform movement of 1898 and its place in modern Chinese history

Huynh Sanh Thong, research fellow, East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, for research on the influence of Chinese leftist literature and of Maoism on Vietnamese writers

Allen S. Whiting, Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan, for research in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Japan on the Chinese perception of, and communication on, arms control

Silas H. L. Wu, Professor of History, Boston College, for research on village life in North China under the com­mune system (renewal)

Ka-che Yip, Assistant Professor of History, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, for research on nationalism and revolution: student activism in China, 1920-28

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE ECONOMY OF CHINA

At a meeting on February 16 the Subcommittee on Re­search on the Chinese Economy-Dwight H. Perkins (chair­man), Robert F. Dernberger, Albert Feuerwerker, John G. Gurley, and K. C. Yeh-made its recommendations to the Joint Committee on Contemporary China concerning grants to be made in the third year of this program. The Joint Committee approved awards to the following 6 scholars:

Chu-yuan Cheng, Associate Professor of Economics, Ball State University, for research on the petroleum industry in China, 1949-65

Peter J. Golas, Assistant Professor of History, University of Denver, for an analysis of rates of taxation in southern Sung China compared with rates of inflation during the period 1127-1279

Robert M. Hartwell, Associate Professor of History, Univer­sity of Pennsylvania, for research on sociopolitical change and economic progress in China, 950-1250

Ramon H. Myers, Professor of Economics and History, Uni­versity of Miami, Coral Gables, for research on an evolv­ing peasant economy: Manchuria from the late nine­teenth century to 1934

William C. Snead, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hamil­ton College, for research in the United States on urban economics in the People's Republic of China

Yeh-chien Wang, Associate Professor of History, Kent State University, for research on money and prices in China, 1644-1935 (renewal of grant made in 1971-72)

GRANTS FOR JAPANESE STUDIES

Under the program sponsored by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies (of the American Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Research Council), its Subcom­mittee on Grants for Research-Robert J. Smith (chairman), James T. Araki, John W. Hall, T. J. Pempel, Ann Waswo, and Kozo Yamamura-at its meeting on March 10 voted to make awards to 9 scholars:

Scott C. Flanagan, Assistant Professor of Government, Flor­ida State University, Tallahassee, for a comprehensive ana!ysis. and synth~si.s of s~rvey data on mass political be­havlOr m Japan Gomt with Bradley M. Richardson)

Roger F. Hackett, Professor of History, University of Michi­gan!.~or research in Japan and England on the military in Melp Japan and the role of the armed forces in the devel­opment of Meiji society

Corn~lius J. Kiley, Assistant Professor of History, Villanova Umverslty, for research in Tokyo on the disintegration of the Japanese state in the ninth and tenth centuries

Ellis S. Krauss, Assistant Professor of Political Science West­ern Washington State College, for research in Japan on urban politics in the prefecture of Kyoto

Roy Andrew ¥ille:, Professor .of Asian Languages and Lit­erature~ Um.versl~y of Washmg.ton, for research in Kyoto on the Identification and analYSIS of the Malaya-Polynesian substratum in the older stages of the Japanese language

Ri~hard H. Minear, Associate Professor of History, Univer­Sity of Massachusetts, for research on the terms of political

14

discourse in eighteenth-century Japan: Ogyii Sorai (1666-1728) and Japanese Confucianism

Shumpei Okamoto, Associate Professor of History, Temple Umversity, for research in Japan on Japanese ideas of China, 1911-31

Bradley M. Richardson, Associate Professor of Political Sci- • ence, Ohio State University, for a synthesis of Japanese political behavior research and a comparison of Japanese political behavior with Western models Goint with Scott C. Flanagan)

Barbara Ruch, Associate Professor of Japanese Language ~nd Literature, University of Pennsylvania, for research m Europe and Japan on Japanese fiction in illustrated book and scroll form in the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries

GRANTS FOR KOREAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Korean Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Chong-Sik Lee (chairman), Yunshik Chang, Gari K. Ledyard, Chae-Jin Lee, Youngil Lim, and Edward W. Wagner-at its meeting on February 27 awarded 9 grants for research by individual scholars and 1 collaborative research grant:

Kae H. Chung, Professor of Administration, Wichita State University, for research in Korea on human resource de­velopment programs and managerial characteristics

Sungjoo Han, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brook­lyn College, City University of New York, for research in Korea on social, economic, and political consequences of government policies in the rural areas of South Korea ~rel~ •

Ch~n-W. Ki~, P.rofessor of Linguistics .and Speech, Univer-sity of IllmOls at Urbana-Champaign, for research in Seoul on the genesis of tone in Middle Korean

Sam-Woo Kim, Toronto, Canada, for research on Chinul and Korean S<'Sn Buddhism

Young C. Kim, Associate Professor of Economics Northern Illinois University, for research in Seoul on' sources of growth of manufacturing output in South Korea, 1962-73

Byung <?h~l Koh, ~rofesso: of Political Science, University of Ilhn~)ls at Chicago Circle, for a comparative study in t~e Umted States, Seoul, and Tokyo of the foreign poli­cies of North and South Korea

Tong-Whan Park, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University, for research in Korea on two Koreas in Asian cC!nflict: the dynamics of arms race, de­terrence, and coeXistence, 1945-72

Rich~rd J: Pearso~,. Associate ~rofessor of Anthropology, Umverslty of BntlSh Columbia, for research in Korea on man-land relationship in Korean prehistory

Rob~rt F. Spencer, Professor of Anthropology, University of Mmnesota, for research in Seoul on the urban industrial worker in South Korea

Collaborative research grant

Herbert R. Barringer, Professor of Sociology, University of Hawaii (on sabbatical leave), and

Man-Gap Lee, Professor of Sociology, Seoul National Uni­versity, for research in Korea on the differential effects of urban complexity and migration on the Korean family

VOLU:\IE 28, NUMBEIl I

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­

Afarvin Zonis (chairman), Janet Abu-Lughod, S. N. Eisen­Wltadt, Ira M. Lapidus, K. Allin Luther, Serif Mardin, Nur

Yalman, I. William Zartman, and Abdelkader Zghal-at its meeting on March 29-30 awarded 11 grants for research by individual scholars and 4 collaborative research grants:

Ernest T. Abdel-Massih, Associate Professor of Arabic and Berber, University of Michigan, for research in Egypt on Pan-Arabic: an emerging common spoken Arabic

Constance Cronin, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Arizona, for research in Teheran on the private life styles of Iranian elites (renewal)

Michael W. Dols, Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Stud­ies, California State University, Hayward, for historical research in Egypt on Muslim response to social crises in the Middle East

Michael M. J. Fischer, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies, Harvard University, for research in Iran on comparative urbanization

Farhad Kazemi, Assistant Professor of Politics, New York University, for research in Iran on political, social, and economic consequences of rapid urbanization

John G. Kennedy, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, for research in Beirut and North Yemen on the world view of Zaidi culture

Majid Khadduri, Professor of Middle East Studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins Uni-

• versity, for research in England, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt on the politics of Iraq since the Revolution of 1958

Ellen C. Micaud, Assistant Professor of Art History, Uni­versity of Denver, for a comparative study in France,

Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia on architecture and urban planning practices in the Maghreb since independence

Donald Quataert, postdoctoral scholar, Near Eastern Center, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Turkey and Germany on the Anatolian railroad: its economic and social impact on the cultivating classes of central Turkey, 1890-1908

Amal Vinogradov, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Queens College, City University of New York, for research in Baghdad on social entropy, ethnicity, and intergroup dynamics in Northern Iraq

Gernot L. Windfuhr, Professor of Iranian Studies, Univer­sity of Michigan, for research in Iran on linguistic dynam­ics: the Lakki dialeots

Collaborative resem'ch grants Aaron Bar-Adon, Professor of Linguistics, University of

Texas at Austin, and Chaim Rabin, Professor of Hebrew Language, Hebrew Uni­

versity of Jerusalem, for research in Israel on linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of the Hebrew Revival, 1880-1920

Katharina Otto-Dorn, Professor of Art History, University of California, Los Angeles, and

Goniil oney, Professor of History of Art, University of Ankara, for a comparative study in Iran of Persian and Anatolian Seljuk Mausolea

Leslie L. Roos, Jr., Associate Professor of Business Admin­istration, University of Manitoba, and

Metin Heper, Assistant Professor of Administrative Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, for compara­tive and longitudinal studies in Turkey of its bureaucracy

Alex Weingrod, Professor of Anthropology, Brandeis Uni­versity, and

Michael Gurevitch, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Television Research, University of Leeds, for research in Jerusalem on contact networks in the Israeli national elite

PUBLICATIONS The Allied Occupation of Japan, 1945-1952: An Annotated

Bibliography of Western-Language Materials, compiled and edited by Robert E. Ward and Frank Joseph Shulman, with the assistance of Masashi Nishihara and Mary Tobin Espey, for the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies and the University of Michigan Center for Japanese Studies. Chicago: American Library Association. March 1974. 889 pages. $50.00.

Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies, edited by Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw. Product of a conference held by the Institute for Comparative Sociology, Bloomington, Indiana, with the assistance of the former Committee on Comparative Politics, April 8-9, 1971. New York: John Wiley & Sons, September 1973. 494 pages. $17.95.

Computer Simulation in Human Population Studies, edited by Bennett Dyke and Jean W. MacCluer. Papers prepared for a conference sponsored by the Committee on Biologi­cal Bases of Social Behavior, June 12-14, 1972. New York: Academic Press, February 1974. 539 pages. $16.00.

Directory of Foreign A,'ea Fellows 1952-1972. November

• 1973. 422 pages. $3.00. Orders should be addressed to Social Science Research Council, 605 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016.

MARCH 1974

Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer. Product of a confer­ence cosponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics, and the Departments of Anthropology and Linguistics and the Center for Intercultural Studies in Folklore and Oral History, University of Texas at Austin, April 20-23, 1972. New York: Cambridge University Press, June 1974. c. 700 pages. Cloth, c. $28.50; paper, c. $11.95.

The International Linkage of National Economic Models, edited by R. J. Ball. Sponsored by the Committee on Economic Stability. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publish­ing Company, August 1973. 479 pages. $25.00.

Japanese Economic Growth: Trend Acceleration in the Twentieth Century, by Kazushi Ohkawa and Henry Rosovsky. Report on a study initiated under the auspices of the former Committee on Economic Growth. Stanford: Stanford University Press, August 1973. 346 pages. $15.00.

Langual$e and Area Studies Review, by Richard D. Lambert. Amencan Academy of Political and Social Science Mono­graph 17. Final report on the review sponsored by the Social Science Research Council. October 1973. 509 pages . $4.00 to individuals; $5.00 to institutions. Orders should be addressed to American Academy of Political and Social Science, 3937 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa, 19104.

15

Language Attitudes: CU1Tent Trends and Pmspects, edited by Roger W. Shuy and Ralph W. Fasold. Product of work­shops at the Conference on Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects, jointly sponsored by the Commit­tee on Sociolinguistics and Georgetown University, March 16-18, 1972. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 206 pages. $3.50.

Language Planning: Cunent Issues and Research, edited by Joan Rubin and Roger W. Shuy. Product of workshops at the Conference on Sociolinguistics (see preceding title). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 121 pages. $2.95.

Modem Chinese Societ,,: An Analytical Bibliography. 3 volumes. Prepared under the auspices of the former Subcommittee on Research on Chinese Society, Joint Committee on Contemporary China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, January 1974:

Vol. 1. Publications in Westem Languages, 1644-1972, edited by G. William Skinner. 880 pages. $35.00.

Vol. 2. Publications in Chinese, 1644-1969, edited by G. William Skinner and Winston Hsieh. 877 pages. $38.00.

Vol. 3. Publications in Japanese, 1644-1971, edited by G. William Skinner and Shigeaki Tomita. 600 pages. $32.00.

Social Change and Politics in Ttt1"key: A Structttral­Historical Analysis, by Kemal H. Karpat and others. Prod-

uct of a conference on social growth and democracy in Turkey, cosponsored by the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, and the Department of Politics, New York University, May 27-29, 1965. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973 [1974]. 384 pages.

Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Pmspects, Report the Twenty-Third Annual Round Table Meeting Linguistics and Language Studies, edited by Roger . Shuy. Georgetown University Monograph Series on Lan­guages and Linguistics, No. 25. Papers of the conference jointly sponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics and Georgetown University, March 16-18, 1972. Wash­ington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 360 pages. $4.50.

Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences, edited by Arthur S. Goldberger and Otis Dudley Duncan. Prod­uct of a conference cosponsored by the Social Science Re­search Council and the Social Systems Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, November 12-16, 1970. New York: Seminar Press, July 1973. 374 pages. $15.95.

The Traditional Artist in African Societies, edited by War­ren L. d' Azevedo. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Joint Committee on African Studies, Indiana Uni­versity, and the University of Nevada Desert Research Institute, May 28-30, 1965. Bloomington: Indiana Uni­versity Press, 1973. 478 pages. $16.00.

FULBRIGHT-HAYS AWARDS FOR SENIOR AMERICAN

Applications will be accepted this spring for more than 550 university lecturing and advanced research awards dur­ing 1975-76 in over 75 countries under the senior Fulbright­Hays Program, the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (formerly the Committee on International Ex­change of Persons) announced recently. Specialists in the sciences who are U.S. citizens and have a doctorate or college teaching experience are invited to indicate their interest in an award by completing a simple registration form, avail­able on request from the Senior Fulbright-Hays Program, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418. Registrants will receive a detailed announcement of the 1975-76 program in April. July I, 1974 is the deadline for applying for research awards and it is also the suggested date for filing for lectureships.

AND FOREIGN SCHOLARS Each year Fulbright-Hays agencies abroad forward to th.

Council for International Exchange of Scholars applicatiow of senior foreign scholars who are interested in remunerative appointments for lecturing and postdoctoral research at American colleges or universities for temporary periods. The CIES would be pleased to receive at any time informa­tion regarding appointments available at American educa­tional institutions for foreign scholars for periods of three months to one year.

A directory of senior Fulbright-Hays foreign scholars who are in the United States this academic year is available on request. A number of these scholars would welcome invita­tions to give lectures or to participate in special conferences under the sponsorship of academic institutions and educa­tional organizations.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 605 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y . 10016

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

Directors, 1974: WILLIAM J. BAUMOL, ALLAN G. BOGUE, LAWRENCE A. CREMIN, LEON EISENBERG, LEON D. EpSTEIJI;, SUSA ... ;\-1. ERVIN·TRIPp, RICHARD

F. FENNO, JR., LEO A. GOODMAN, EDWARD E. JONES, LAWRENCE R. KLEIN , GARDNER LINDZEY, LEON LIPSON, CORA BAGLEY MARRETT, HERBERT

MCCLOSKY, SALLY FALK MOORE, JAMES N . MORGAN, MURRAY G. MURPHEY, ALFONSO ORTIZ, JOHN W. PRATT, ALICE S . ROSSI, WILLIAM H. SEWELL,

ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON, ELLIOTT P. SKINNER, M . BREWSTER SMITH, JANET T . SPENCE, EDWARD J . TAAFFE, KARL E . TAEUBr.R , JOH N 1\1. THOMPSON ,

ROBERT E. WARD, CHARLES V . WIll.IE

Officers and Staff: ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON, President; DAVID L. SIll.S, Executive Associate; GoRDON M. ADAMS, MICHAEL W. DONNELLY, JAlIIES

FENNESSEY, LOUIS W. GOODMAN, ELEANOR C . IsBELL, DAVID JENNESS, PATRICK G. MADDOX, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., ROBERT PARKE,

POTASHNIK, DOROTHY SODERLUND, DAVID A . STATT, ROXANN A . VAN DUSEN, NICHOLAS ZILL; NORMAN MANN , Busilless Mallager; CATHERINE

RONNAN, Financial Secretary; NANCY CARMICHAEL, Librarian

16