SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 38 . NUMBERS 2/3. SEPTEMBER 1984 605 THIRD AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10158

Law and the Social Sciences

To WRITE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP between law and the social sciences begs a cultural question at the outset. The authors of this article became aware of this when they attempted to expound the law-and­social science relationship on a visit to China. For our hosts, the idea made no sense, because law is a social science. In the United States, on the other hand, the law retains both the prestige and the stigma attached historically to the world's second oldest profession. (In contemporary China, now perhaps, it is the social sciences that are acquiring both.)

This article has three main purposes: (1) To orient the reader to the history of the re­

lationship between law and the social sciences in the United States as organized enterprises, objects of study, academic disciplines, means of social action, and forms of social intervention;

(2) To explain the approaches taken by the con­tributors in a forthcoming state-of-the-art volume sponsored by the Council, giving a brief notion of the contents of the chapters in the volume and their con­nections with one another; 1 and

(3) To report and hazard some conjectures on some of the principal trends that may be inferred from the volume.

* Mr. Lipson is a professor oflaw, and Mr. Wheeler a professor of both law and sociology, at the Yale Law School.

1 This article is adapted from the introduction to a forthcoming book, Law and the Social Sciences (New York: Russell 'Sage Founda­tion, 1985). The book is a product of the Council's Committee on Law and Social Science (1974-84), of which Mr. Lipson was chairman and Mr. Wheeler a member. The other members of the committee were Phoebe C. Ellsworth and Lawrence M. Friedman, both of Stanford University; Marc Galanter, University of Wis­consin; Sally Falk Moore, Harvard University; and Nelson W.

An overview of a forthcoming Council-sponsored book

by Leon Lipson and Stanton Wheeler*

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE

25 Law and the Social Sciences-Leon Lipson and Slaliloll Wheeler

32 The Short and Happy Life of Social Indicators at the National Science Foundation- Murray Abom

41 Biosocial Perspectives on Child Abuse and Neglect 44 Fellowships and Grants for International Research Of­

fered for 1985-86 44 New Fellowship Program in Russian and Soviet Studies

45 Current Activities at the Council - New directors and officers (page 45) - Joint Advisory Committee on International Studies

(page 45) - Symposium on science and technology studies (page

45) - Research opportunities in the behavioral and social

sciences (page 46) - Forecasting in the social and natural sciences (page

47) - Resistance and rebellion in the Andean world (page

48) '- New approaches to Latin American labor history

(page 50) . - Francis X. Sutton receives AAS Distinguished Service

Award (page 51) 52 Fellowships and Grants Awarded in 1984

Polsby and Philip Selznick, both of University of California, Berk­eley. David L. Sills served as staff to the committee. In addition to the Introduction by Messrs. Lipson and Wheeler, the book con­sists of the following chapters: Varieties of Legal Systems, Sally Falk Moore, Harvard University; Law and the Normative Order, Richard D. Schwartz, Syracuse University; Law and the Economic Order, Edmund W. Kitch, University of Chicago; Adjudication, Marc Galanter, University of Wisconsin; Legislation, David Mayhew, Yale University; Implementation and Enforcement,Jef­frey L. Jowell, University College, London; Punishment, Jack P.

25

Background

The wellsprings of the modern law-and-social­science movement-as its members came to think of it-may be found in two related ideas that were al­ready in evidence by the turn of the 20th century among some social scientists and academic lawyers.

The first was the growing perception that law is a social phenomenon, and that legal doctrine and legal actors are integral parts of the social landscape. Be­cause they are a part of social life, legal phenomena both stimulate changes in other social institutions and are affected by social changes and pressures oc­curring elsewhere in the society. The law also serves to codify social relations, to make them more explicit, and to impart structure to them. If legal events and actors are thus interwoven with the society, under­standing legal phenomena requires examining them not in isolation but in relation to the surrounding social world.

This observation sounds so obvious in the late 20th century that one wonders how it could ever have seemed otherwise. It is useful, then, to recall the posi­tion taken by Christopher Columbus Langdell, pro­fessor and dean at Harvard Law School, roughly a century ago. Langdell located the science of law among the other activities of a great university, jus­tified the university as the proper place for the train­ing of lawyers, and had a vision of the subject matter that made the recommended intellectual activity ap­propriate:

[It] was indispensable to establish at least two things: first that law i~ a science; secondly, that all the available materials of that science are contained in printed books. If law be not a science, a university will best consult its own dignity in declining to teach it ... If ... there are other and better means of teaching and learning law than printed books ... it must be confessed that such means cannot be provided by a university. But if printed books are the ultimate sources of all legal knowledge; if every student who would obtain any mastery of law as a science must resort to these ultimate sources; and ifthe only assistance which it is possible for the learner to receive is such as can be afforded hy teachers who have traveled the same road beforehand, -then a university and a university alone, can furnish every

Gibbs, Vanderbilt University; The Legal Profession, Richard L. Abel, University of Calii()rnia, Los Angeles; Private Government, Stewart Macaulay, University of Wisconsin; Legal and Civic Par­tipation, Austin D. Sa rat, Amherst College; Social Science in Legal Decision Making, Julius G. Getman, Vale Univel'sity, and Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Stanford University; Problems of Method, Shari Seidman Diamond, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle. The pl'eparation of the book was supported by a grant from the Law and Social Sciences Program of the National Science Foun­dation (SOC 77-11370).

26

possible facility for teaching and learning law ... . We have also constantly inculcated the idea that the library is the proper workshop of professors and students alike; that it is to us all that the laboratories of the university are to the chemists and physicists, all that the Museum of Natural History is to the zoologist, all that the botanical garden is to the botanist.

If all the materials for the science of law lay in "printed books," then there would be no need to in­quire into other on-going behavior-of judges, courts, lawyers, juries, or other legal actors-no need, in other words, for the kinds of studies and analyses carried out by participants in the law-and-society movement. And if one used those legal materials primarily to discern legal principles, the capacity of legal life to reflect the nature of the society in which it was located would have remained hidden from view. It was just this capacity that was brilliantly illustrated by Emile Durkheim in his imaginative use of the ratio of civil to penal law in a society as an index of changes in social solidarity.

The second idea underlying the law-and-social science movement was that legal institutions not only are embedded in social life, but also can be improved by drawing upon the organized wisdom of social ex­perience. Here the pragmatic and the scientific com­bine to provide a new way of assessing legal doctrine and legal practice. In its less technical form, this view is reflected in the assertion, made by Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1890s, that the life of law has not been logic but experience. Its most prominent early exam­ple among legal materials is the famous "Brandeis Brief' of 1908, which examined dozens of reports of the actual working conditions and experiences of women in factories in a successful effort to help the state of Oregon justify its protective labor legislation in court. The principle that courts, advocates, and scholars should look beyond the cases and the case doctrine to real-life circumstances became one of the cornerstones of the development of legal realism later in the 20th century.

Later still, a more precise method of organizing certain legal-social experience was worked out for the study of the effect that the enactment of rules by a legislature, or the pronouncement of doctrine and decision by a court, or the promulgation of adminis­trative regulations would have on the behavior of persons and institutions. These "legal impact studies" took on increasing intricacy and formality as policy makers and scholars learned the importance of at­tending 'to desired and undesired effects, to unin­tended or unforeseen consequences, and to changes that occur as relevant conditions change over the lifetime of a rule.

VOLUMI:. 38, NUMBERS 2/3

In its more technical and scientific form, the appli­cation of behavioral science to law had equally ardent advocates and detractors. In retrospect, it seems fair to say that many of the advocates were less than fully appreciative of the difficulties encountered in at­tempting to do relevant and significant social research on legal issues, and thus often claimed more than they could deliver. Manifestoes were eloquent; methodologies, ambitious; results, modest. The advo­cates often encountered a stridently defensive group of legal academics who were all too ready to pounce on the frailties with professionally specialized acumen as a basis for dismissing the enterprise. The result is that other than the now well-documented rise and decline of legal realism in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s, and occasional substantive fruits of that period, such as the work of Karl N. Llewellyn and E. Adamson Hoebel in legal anthropology, one can talk about the early history of the law-and-society movement by referring to the turn-of-the-century giants of European social science, Durkheim and Weber, and the subsequent recognition of the poten­tial of social science in the work of the Americans Holmes and Pound, with little of great significance emerging until after midcentury.

The enterprise of law and social science that is reflected in the pages of this new Council volume is an outgrowth of the enormous expansion of the social and behavioral sciences that took place in the 1950s and afterward in the United States, building on war­time and postwar research and training. That general movement brought new funding for social research through the establishment of the National Institute of Mental Health and the social science division of the National Science Foundation. It was also marked by a period in which private philanthropy, most notably the Ford Foundation, made significant grants for large-scale social research (the most prominent result in law-and-society work being the jury studies by Harry Kalven,Jr., Hans Zeisel, and their colleagues).

The application of behavioral science to law was made easier by three other trends that emerged dur­ing this period . First, after World War II major works of European social theory were translated and pub­lished in English for the first time, so that the works of Weber, Durkheim, and others became more easily accessible to the American scholarly community. The rebirth of interest in European theory had a second effect: American social scientists moved away from the strong rule-skepticism characterized by the period of legal realism to entertain at least the idea that the study of law could deal with the role of legal principle and legal reasoning in the behavior of legal actors-

SEPn:MBER 1984

without becoming in itself an entirely nonnative en­terprise. The result is that many of the studies that have emerged more recently have a joint focus that attends to rules and their interpretation, as well as to the more concrete behaviors of legal actors.

Finally, the singular case of the American caste system and the major Supreme Court decision con­cerning it, Brown v. Board of Education of Topelw (1954), highlighted the role, dubious as it was for many, of the social sciences as potential influences on legal policy. Perhaps even more important, the Brown case and its aftermath provided a visible, powerful in­stance of the impact of law on society and in that way stimulated research on law.

Taken together, these developments created a fer­tile ground for the institutionalization of interdiscip­linary work in law and the behavioral sciences. Al­though the particulars of the developments differed by discipline in ways far too detailed to be recited here, it seems fair to say that something like a "Iaw­and-society" movement was generated during the 1950s, and that it grew so much in the 1960s and 1970s that there is by now a large body of findings, propositions, and conjectures worth analyzing in an assessment volume.

There are many signs of the field's institutionaliza­tion. There has been a consistent flow of funding specifically for work in law and social science since at least the late 1950s, when the Council-with support from the Ford Foundation-began to give postdoc­toral grants for research on American governmental and legal processes. This program ultimately became a responsibility of a new Council Committee on Gov­ernmental and Legal Processes (1964-72) . In the early 1960s, the Russell Sage Foundation began to devote a major portion of its resources to the law­and-society field. Beginning in the early 1960s and continuing for over a decade, Russell Sage funding provided the principal resources for training and re­search in law and the social sciences. The funding took three interrelated forms. (1) It provided sub­stantial support to those institutions willing to commit themselves to interdisciplinary programs in law and the social sciences. The first programs were estab­lished at the University of California, Berkeley; at the University of Wisconsin; at Northwestern University; and at the University of Denver. Later programs of varying degrees of intensity and duration were estab­lished at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania. The funding enabled the develop­ment of interdisciplinary courses and seminars and support for faculty members and graduate students committed to the enterprise. (2) The Russell Sage

27

Foundation established a fellowship program for a select group of scholars to pursue interdisciplinary training, often at universities that were receiving in­stitutional support. The training, often for two-year periods, enabled the scholars to develop the back­ground that would facilitate a career commitment to interdisciplinary work. (3) The Russell Sage Founda­tion provided funding for major pieces of sociological research, and often published the results of that re­search. This three-pronged support provided by Rus­sell Sage-for institutions, for individual training, and for research-gave momentum to the law-and­social science enterprise.

Of special importance in the United States was the development of a new program in law and social science at the National Science Foundation. The NSF had been funding basic research in the social sciences for many years, but it had never developed a specific program to support research in law and social science. In 1972, such a program was initiated, along the lines of other NSF programs: the screening and selection of research proposals through a system of peer review and the award of research grants to successful appli­cants. Although the total budget is small (around $1 million a year), it provides a basis for the continuity of research and of research interests. Those receiving awards include anthropologists, economists, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists, along with those trained primarily in law. Other patterns of sup­port have been institutionalized in a number of Euro­pean countries: for example, at various Max Planck institutes in Germany and at the Centre for Socio­Legal Studies at Oxford.

The growth of the enterprise is also reflected in the birth of associations and journals devoted specifically to interdisciplinary concerns. In the United States, the Law and Society Association represents a large portion of this interest. The Association's annual meetings are attended by lawyers as well as by social scientists. The Law & Society Review, the official organ of the Association, has been in existence for over 15 years. A strategically important role was played also in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the Council on Law-Related Studies under the direction of David Cavers, who before moving from Duke to Harvard had been active in founding Law & Contemporary Prob/Plns.

By the end of the 1970s, many university depart­ments in faculties of arts and sciences had provided recognized home bases for social science students of law: the sociology of law in departments of sociology, the psychology of law in psychology departments, etc. The picture in law schools was different. The law-

28

and-society enterprise once stood pretty much on its own in the law school world; but by now legal history, like law-and-economics, has emerged as a separate program, with its own cast of characters, its own field of application, and its own doctrine.· Legal philosophy has had a more diffuse impact in law schools, while the perspective called critical legal theory has gained many adherents. As a consequence of these developments, what was once thought of as the law-and-society enterprise-economics apart-is fighting for space among all the others. The behav­ioral sciences have remained relatively stable except for beachheads here and there, while the others have grown faster.

The plan of the book

The new book sponsored by the Council is at bot­tom a volume of assessment: it is not a collection of speculative essays and not a set of reports on fresh research. It is designed with attention to three dyads, which in turn are interlocked.

First, the authors of the chapters are about evenly divided between contributors trained and working primarily in law, and those trained and working primarily in one of the social sciences. (One chapter and the introduction are written jointly by different pairs of authors of two different orientations.) Each contributor, however, is conversant with work and problems across the range of relevant disciplines; sev­eral of them are formally or informally trained in both law and a social science; most of them hold academic appointments in "well-mixed" faculties or schools; and most are engaged in training and super­vising students who attend law schools as well as stu­.dents who study in faculties of arts and sciences.

Second, the scope of each chapter was fixed not by its supposed disciplinary boundaries hut by the im­portance or interest of the subject and the work done on it, although it will be obvious to the reader that in some cases the topic leans toward one "-ology" more than it does to others.

Third, each chapter contains, in slightly different ratios, both an exposition of the author's point of view and a survey of the pertinent literature-to which, in most cases, the author of the chapter has been a substantial contributor. It ought not to be hard for the reader to make the relevant distinctions.

It would be impossible to summarize the informa­tion and opinions presented in the substantive chap­ters without compressing an already condensed text to an indigestible consistency. We limit ourselves here to some illustrative highlights of their message, re-

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

serving the next section for more abstract themes that cut across many of the contributions.

• It has been a commonplace of critics at least since the time of Tocqueville that law spreads to cover ever-more aspects of American life while (or be­cause?) other dimensions of organization such as reli­gion, tradition, community, and fraternity give ground under various current pressures. Sometimes the critics have disagreed, or doubted whether the tendency toward legalization has generally worked for or against equality, for or against participation, for or against justice.

One concomitant of the law's success was that theories about law tended until rather recently to be developed within the legal profession and thus to have a high normative component, no matter whether the theorist's attitude was positive or nega­tive. Social scientists have been exhorted by (aca­demic) lawyers since the 1920s to pay more attention to the law; but the same jurists who thought they welcomed the attention cherished the arcane and thus sometimes forbidding accoutrements of the guild. Most law firms probably would have resisted scholarly scrutiny of their part of the legal profession as intru- . sive, unethical, and irrelevant. In commenting on a proposal that large law firms be studied by legal scholars, an illustrious lawyer once told an illustrious university president, "Let them study the provision of legal services to the poor!" It was not until the 1970s that many academic lawyers accepted as good form the activity of studying law teaching and practice as an enterprise not less respectable than poets writing poems about the writing of poetry or playwrights writing plays about actors or writers. As attention thus came to be focused on the legal profession in the law schools, in part as a result of the interests of scholars engaged in what they termed critical legal theory, observation and analysis were devoted to the possible role of the organization of law school training and lawyering in preserving established hierarchies.

For this reason among others, in the first half of the century the sociology of the legal profession was not a very prominent part of the sociology of the profes­sions: the economics of legal institutions, of lawsuits, and of law firms was not a very favored subject among economists; the anthropology of law did not attract many anthropologists, at least in the field of the law of "advanced" societies; political scientists had and seemed to prefer their own ways of analyzing the state and constitutions.

• One role played by social scientists persisted and has even grown in importance, throughout the changes in the relationship of theoretical perspec-

SEPTEMBER 1984

tives: that of practical applications to the solution of legal problems.

Whatever the views about the wisdom of social sci­ence applications in the desegregation arena, it is by now only one of an enormously varied number of applications of social science in trial and appellate courts as well as in legislative and administrative set­tings. Behavioral science arguments and evidence have been prominent in many issues concerning evi­dence and testimony such as the reliability of eyewit­ness testimony, in cases of race or sex discrimination, in death penalty litigation, in the issues surrounding the location of nuclear energy plants, in questions of jury size and composition, in cases involving natural disasters, as well as in such earlier applications as economic analysis in connection with patent and copyright claims. In some of these areas, the social science component is neither auxiliary nor ancillary; rather, it lies at the core of the legal claim and the evidence in its behalf. Thus, it is being institu­tionalized, to some extent, in legal practice, in fund­ing, and in interdisciplinary journals.

Academic lawyers doing "empirical" work may work with or study under social scientists for infor­mation and method; the apparent precision of statis­tical arrays and operations, deceptively implying the possibility of transforming quantity into quality, may have impressed some lawyers or convinced them that judges and juries would be impressed, despite the admonitions of statisticians and social scientists. Law schools sometimes add social scientists to their teach­ing faculties, encourage law-trained faculty members to add social science training to their skills, and even permit students to take courses elsewhere in the uni­versity from lesser breeds.

Social scientists, meanwhile-especially in the re­cent past-sometimes take advantage of these needs to promote access to legal materials and lawyers for research agendas of their own. Off to one side, the historians have been digging into legal materials, turning up with their spades the messy counterexam­ples that the past obtrudes on law professors' gener­alizations.

• Social scientists, trying to blend immanent and external perspectives in looking at law, have recently turned to the settlement of disputes as an object of analysis. Dispute settlement has promised to reward the efforts of anthropologists, historians, communitar­ians, devotees of critical legal theory, and reformers. Descriptively, the focus on dispute settlement offers a hope of measuring the amount and intensity of cer­tain kinds of claim making and claim adjusting, and thus of getting a handle on litigiousness that goes

29

beyond the observation (itself problematic) of formal litigation. Normatively, it appealed to interests-not always held in common-in cheapness, community, informality, efficiency, and perhaps also in reducing the power and income of lawyers. For some, the very idea of a plurality of dispute-settling institutions, au­tonomous with regard to the state, would help to retard the growth of Leviathan. Books and articles sported the theme of law without lawyers, law without sanctions, and justice without law. Some of the studies found that some extrajudicial procedures such as commercial arbitration caught on and became estab­lished to the extent that they limited or adapted fea­tures of the regular legal system. Others suggested that deep and persistent features of American societal development pressed the polity toward a centralizing legal system which, though it might sacrifice some _ virtues, would help to avert greater vices; to use the language of game theory, this view defended law as a "mini maximizer." At another level of theorizing, some scholars have warned that the focus on dispute settlement should not be taken to imply that the prac­tice of law is limited to representation of clients in disputes.

• One contributor works outside the United States Uowell), and foreign experience is indirectly reflected in several of the other chapters. Enough is reported to disclose the affirmative and negative forms of the institutional fallacy: that is, the error of supposing that two institutions bearing the same name must serve the same function in two societies, and the error of supposing that a given function cannot be per­formed in a second society if it lacks an institution by which that function is performed in the first. Unex­pected parallels attest the presence of similar difficul­ties, although not necessarily of comprehensive "con­vergence": for example, in their domestic businesses, . American entrepreneurs and Soviet managers alike often fail to pursue breach-of-contract remedies, theoretically available, because they wish despite the breach to have continuing relationships with the other parties. I n one polity, the profit-and-loss state­ment seems to suffer, in the short run; in the other, the complaint is made that the Plan is distorted by the forbearance of the putative plaintiff; but the busi­nessmen in both polities may well know what they are doing.

• For a profession that prides itself on distrusting large generalizations, the law operates on the basis of implicit tenets whose power is great while they last, although their life may be short. It is true that philos­ophers of law were not held in great esteem in the United States in the period between the decline of

30

the prestige of Germanic scholarship (about the time of the first World War) and the rise of liberal ration­alist generalists in the early 1970s. Yet the generaliz­ing enterprise continued under other banners with faint devices on them: rationalizing, harmonizing, promoting uniformity, restating, celebrating the sub­stantive virtues exercised obliquely by procedural nicety, and exalting reverence for constitutions and constitutionalism. More recently, the vinues of eco­nomic analysis of legal dynamics have been acclaimed, and the acclamation in turn criticized; some efforts have been made to apply to the law some of the methods used or at least reported from linguistic philosophy, structuralism, and literary criticism; Marxism and other sometimes-critical theories have been brought to bear on the ideological and economic aspects of law work in a contest where the participants recriminate with mutual charges of mystification. Time was when the social sciences found reflection in legal literature chiefly in the form of methodological manifestoes. Now that social science research in law has ramified and deepened, we may be entering a period of declamatory empire building, not by the partisans of law and social science but by advocates of more traditional legal scholarship.

Cross-cutting themes and trends

Although the chapters of the book are focused on various substantive areas and lean primarily on dif­ferent disciplines, they share several partially over­lapping preoccupations. These cross-cutting themes and trends may point in the direction of future re­search and action.

Power. The chapters on integration and conflict, on private government, on varieties of legal order, on participation, and some of the others refer to in­stances of continuing tension between private and public ordering of behavior; between diffused and concentrated power; between power in its formal, modern legitimation through the political process and power in its economic and social modes, made partly convertible with other modes through law as well as other processes. Certain activities of all or part of the public are regulated by contract-like ar­rangements between government and subsets of the people, a development which observers called, with some alarm, the Kammel:\taat (roughly, corporate state) when they noticed it a generation ago in central Europe. Several chapters, e.g., on administration and on private government, deal with the conflicting values of keeping or making public officials account­able and allowing them the discretion without which

VOLUME 38, NUMBt:RS 2/3

they cannot do all of their work. In the chapters on deterrence, social science in the courts, and normative issues one can see the contemporary version of vener­able arguments over the causes of violation and evasion of the law and, even more problematic, the causes of compliance. The chapters on economic analysis, private government, and varieties of legal order, among others, sketch informal mechanisms for coping and finagling, or (to change the metaphor) social lubricants of the creaky joints in the formal machinery.

Design and function. These themes are counter­pointed against the themes of power. Lawyers are supposed to be specially competent to invent, facilitate, and obstruct connections among purposes, policies, rules, and forms; almost all the chapters give instances of success and failure therein. Account­ability versus discretion, mentioned above, is paral­leled here by the tension between uniformity of ad­ministration and responsiveness to small variation. The neatness of hierarchical organization is counter­posed to the flexibility of bargaining and negotiation. In the system in which individuals enter the legal profession, accidents of design and function-which may not be quite accidental-have produced a curi­ous matching stratification of students, law schools, occupational roles, and intellectual perspectives.

Symbolic. Several observers of American law have noticed the conflict between the mystique of legal formality, routine, and language and the pressure for explicitness and candor on the part of courts, legisla­tures, administrators, and other figures in authority. Sociologists, social psychologists, cultural an­thropologists, and social critics have looked at law as ritual, drama, theatre, morality play. Students of lan­guage and of the legal profession, especially the legal historians, have drawn attention to the changing waves of emphasis between the (inseparable) ex­pressive and instrumental uses of law. Those who wonder at our secular devotion to constitutionalism have linked it both to the historical need for cultural integration and to the philosophical dispute over the immanence of obligation, a connection that leads to the questions about the sources of compliance men­tioned above under the theme of power.

Cost.\. This theme is not an economist's monopoly. In less explicitly pecuniary terms and in other vocab­ularies, several of the contributors to this volume have taken up the problems of externalities, transaction costs, secondary effects-usually undesired and unplanned-of legal intervention, problematic pri­mary effects (legal impact studies), and occasional

SEPTEMBER 1984

secondary gains. The legal system, when measured by most ordinary criteria, seems so obviously inefficient to many that the second-degree revisionists, criticiz­ing the critics and suggesting that the legal system serves to direct resources to their most efficient use by some appropriate standard, feel impelled to meet the charge of paradox.

Institutional. Although the vast literature on legal education is not fully reviewed, some suggestions are made here and there about the duality of law school training and research as partly professional and partly academic. Studies of the interaction between the legal profession and the public raise questions of the degree of penetration of the legal system into lay mores and of the degree to which lawyers and jurists have and discharge an ethical obligation to reach the public in disseminating the legal culture. That the legal profession has grown much more attractive, and a little more accessible, as a subject of academic study by social scientists from various disciplines is itself a significant fact of recent legal history.

Dynamic. Lawyers in common law jurisdictions have long been comfortable, and some have been adept, in analyzing adjudication as a means by which doctrine could be progressively cleansed. In some branches of the law, especially those touched more insistently by history and historians, they have thought about changes over time in the presuppositions of jurispru­dence. Now, thanks to the increasing intervention of social scientists or social science in legal research, law­yers' attention is being drawn also to social change; to changes in institutions; to the modification of lan­guage over legally relevant intervals of time (control of language through education, caste monopoly of legal vocabulary and professional diction, changes in connotations and currency of terms, changes in style of legal language). The events of administration, legislation, and negotiation are coming more and more to be seen as ordered in a flow, a process of interactive approximation to an end sometimes willed but more often speculatively inferred. Lawyers al­ready have rich informal experience in the workings of organization; now they are being introduced to the more systematic discussions among organization theorists, especially the analysts of bureaucracy, con­cerning the ways in which organizations not only per­sist (although the original purposes may obsolesce) but even develop new and invigorating objectives, to which in turn they must be adapted. All of these changes take place at rates which themselves may change; students of law and society have to keep an eye on the primary curve as well as on its derivatives.

31

Like most collective efforts, the forthcoming book is less comprehensive, less unified, and yet more rep­etitious than we should have liked. Some omission was early and deliberate: for example, we decided not to cover the vast field of the administration and sub­stantive doctrine of criminal law (apart from the chapter on deterrence) because so much recent com­pendia and assessment had been published that more would be only marginally useful. By common al­though mostly tacit consent, the contributors tended not to cover what might be called the manifesto lit­erature, stimulating though much of it is; and vol-

umes that themselves consist of secondary evaluation are relatively neglected. The committee regrets that arrangements made for other contributions by schol­ars from outside the United States did not bear fruit. All the contributors feel that more could well have been said on the details of the practice of law, on the application of economic theories and methods to a wider variety of legal issues, on the language of the law, and on other important subjects that we have ignored or compressed. We console ourselves and justify the enterprise with fair words like "suggestive" and "heuristic"; words that urge the reader to go on. 0

The Short and Happy Life of Social Indicators at the National Science Foundation

The December 1983 issue of Items was a Special Issue, devoted to a review of the Council's II-year program in social indicators. It included reports on the program byfive key participants; it listed all the chairmen, members, and staff of the Council's Committee on Social Indicators; and it included a bibliography of 109 publications of the Council's Washington-based Center for the Coordination of Research on Social Indicators. At the end of 1983, the Center was closed, and the continuing program, with staff, was trans­ferred to New York.

In order to provide readers with an understanding of the programmatic interests of the National Science Foundation in this field of research, the Council has asked Murray Aborn, the NSF officer responsible for social indicators, to review the broad field of social indicators from the point of view of the staff of the principal funding organization.

BEGINNING IN 1971 and continuing for some 11 years, the National Science Foundation (NSF) maintained a distinct program for the support of research and re­lated activities directed towards the development of social indicators and systems of social accounts. A portrayal of the shape and magnitude of NSF fund­ing for social indicators is shown in the figure on page 33. The figure indicates that an average of about 10 per cent of the budget of the NSF division now called Social and Economic Science was expended in sup-

* The author serves as head. Social Measurement and Analysis Section. and program director, Measurement Methods and Data Improvement, Division of Social and Economic Science. National Science Foundation.

32

by Murray Aborn*

port of the program over a 12-year period. While this level of expenditure is not remarkable in either bud­getary proportions or absolute dollars, it does illus­trate NSF's conviction that something distinguishable from the activities associated with the established so­cial science disciplines was taking place in the scien­tific community and it does document the extent of NSF's commitment to it.

Program impact gready exceeds program size

The Division of Social and Economic Science is organized largely along disciplinary lines, with spe­cific programs dedicated to such traditional disci­plines as economics, sociology, and political science. Earlier, the Division also included the disciplines of anthropology, linguistics, and social psychology (which were later transferred to a newly-formed Di­vision of Neural and Behavioral Sciences). This ad­ministrative detail is germane to understanding that the creation of a program in something like social indicators was unusual; it correctly implies that the significance of the program's existence at NSF was greater than its budgetary proportions would suggest. The program was also significant in the historical development of the social sciences at NSF. Despite its size and limited life span, the program left a data resource legacy which became the principal argument in the successful battle to save the Division from pos­sible extinction during the most recent round of bud-

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

getary retrenchments affecting science funding agen­cies. J I t is no exaggeration to say that this legacy is the main reason the Division's budget is now being re­stored to previous social science levels.2 An increase of $3,400,000 in Fiscal Year 1985 will strengthen key time series data collection for major national data resources, including the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the General Social Survey, and the Na­tional Election Studies, and support rigorous quan­titative research using these and other data bases.3

The Division's support of projects concerned with data development did not originate with the social indicators program, but the program gave this area of effort a tremendous boost by supplying new and ex­citing intellectual dimensions to what was previously justified as a means of encouraging greater data sharing among researchers, or as having benefits re-

1 For example, in 1981-the year the Division's budget was scheduled to undergo a 75 per cent reduction in funds-the then-director of NSF testified before a Senate Subcommittee that while the support level for the behavioral and social science5 was being sharply curtailed, the remaining funding was "sufficient to maintain support for the most urgent requirements, such as social science data bases and studies of unemployment and inflation. Other areas of social science are not of equal priority with support for the natural sciences and engiheering because the social sci­ences are not as closely coupled to the President's plans to stimu­late industrial development and economic recovery." See State­ment of Dr. John B. Slaughter, Director, National Science Foun­dation, before the Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, April 30, 1981, page 16.

The same message was contained in the Foundation's budget request to the House Appropriations Committee, where $6.0 mil­lion of the $10.1 million remaining in the Division's budget after a proposed decrease of $30 million was earmarked for the support of "data series and related research resources that are critical to modern quantitative social science." See Hearings Be­fore the Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Ninety-Seventh Congress, First Session, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981, p. 44. Congress ultimately raised NSF's Fiscal Year 1982 social sciences appropriation from the proposed $10.1 million to $17.5 million after members of the research community registered strong protestations against the severity of the cut in social science funding generally, and specifi­cally against the presumed sufficiency of a $10 million appro­priation for the maintenance of NSF-supported data bases. See, for instance, the Statement of Dr. F. Thomas Juster, Director, Institute for Social Research and Professor of Economics, University of Michigan, prepared for the Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropri­ations, May 7-8, 1981.

2 National Science Foundation,Justification oj Estimate.l· oj Appro­priations, Fiscal Yea/' 1985. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1984, page BBS-IV -6.

:1 National Science Foundation, op. cit., pages BBS-IV-5.

SEPTEMBER 1984

lated to economies of scale. Among these new dimen­sions were emphases on longitudinality, trend assess­ment, and social reporting. But the impact of the social indicators program did not stop with data de­velopment or with the initiation of important new time series, or even with progress toward increasingly sophisticated methods of data analysis. Because it necessitated contacts with federal agencies involved in the actual production of economic and social indica­tors, the program helped pave the way for NSF's engagement with the federal statistical system-an engagement which has led to the opening of new opportunities for contributing to the qualitative im­provement and greater accessibility of the government-generated social science data base-by far the largest and richest research resource available to the social scientific community.

It might also be added that the program was a powerful factor in persuading both NSF's top man­agement and the National Science Board of the legitimate needs of the social sciences for large-scale, long-term funding. Social indicator projects were in­fluential in moving the social sciences into the realm of "big science" at NSF-albeit on a very modest scale compared with most of the natural sciences. For example, the relatively large grants which helped the Social Science Research Council support its Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators came up for review before the National Science Board on three separate occasions. These reviews gave this highest of the nation's scientific advisory bodies a

Funding for Social Indicators Within NSF's Division of Social and Economic Science, 1971-82

25

j 20 '0 ~ ... 0 15 ., c

:S 10 Si

5

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Years

Legend o Division IZi.2 Program

33

rare opportunity to become familiar with the over­time operation of a significant social science facility.

A good beginning

The Division's good fortune with social indicators began early on, when it presented plans to the Na­tional Science Board to undertake a social indicators initiative. The Board is a 24-member, presidentially­appointed body which is responsible for shaping NSF policy. Its functions include the review of new pro­grams and related matters brought to its attention because of their policy implications. The Board also must approve all grant commitments beyond certain dollar thresholds, and a year or so preceding the social indicators presentation I participated in the presentation of a multiyear social sciences proposal whose size exceeded one of those thresholds. Much to our surprise, given the fact that the proposed project had many of the characteristics of large-scale projects in the natural sciences, and given the NSF ethos of modeling the social sciences after the natural sciences, the presentation elicited considerable criticism from various Board members. Generally, 'concern was ex­pressed about the wisdom of allocating a sizable pro­portion of social science funds to a project seemingly oriented toward creating an expensive new technol­ogy rather than improving the quality of the more conventional techniques employed by the social sci­ences. We tried to counter by responding that the project would result in improvements in the more conventional social science techniques, mentioning that, for example, the project held the specific prom­ise of improving the existing state of the art in making economic projections. To this one Board member wryly remarked that he thought he would vote in favor of the project because once it was completed, economists could at least be counted on to make better-planned mistakes. .

Our presentation to the Board a year later was In

stark contrast to this earlier experience. The details of our plans to inaugurate a social indicators program were exceptionally well-received and drew many fa­vorable comments. We made no claims for the field's ultimate emergence as a discipline having a research tradition of its own, but we stressed the distinctive qualities of the data and methods likely to be em­ployed. We proposed plans to mobilize the necessary scientific manpower and to support some institutional mechanism to help get things organized (ultimately, this became the Social Science Research Council's Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indi­cators) . Both the sul~ject matter and our plans were greeted with enthusiasm.

34

The science indicators connection

While there is no reason to doubt that the Board's enthusiastic reception was primarily a response to the soundness of the scientific arguments, other factors also account for the success with which the social indicators program was launched. For one thing, such an initiative was clearly recommended by a Special Commission which the Board itself had created in 1968.4 An even broader recommendation concerning federal support for social indicators development is contained in a contemporary report of the National Academy of Sciences. 5 But the timing of the initiative was also felicitous in that it came during a period in which the Board was planning to produce a series of biennial Science Indicators publications to serve as Board reports to the President and the Congress. It was hoped at that time that Science Indicators would eventually serve as guidance for policy action in the allocation and management of resources and as an early warning system for emerging national prob­lems; in these capacities, the series bears a kinship with the general objectives associated with social indi­cators. This is reflected in the introduction to the first Science Indicators volume, published in 1973,6 which emphasized the difficulty of measuring the social and economic impacts of scientific knowledge.

Given this background, it is small wonder that the Board listened to our social indicators presentation with something more than normal interest. The Board at that time was embarking upon a social re­porting venture which included the use of Delphi techniques to gather expert opinion,1 and the sponsorship of a nationwide survey of public attitudes toward science and technology.

Before proceeding with the history of the program, I should like to make one more point-a rather subtle one-concerning the Board's reaction to the presen-

~ National Science Foundation, Klloll'll'dgl' into Action: Improving th(' Nation's Use Ii! the SOt illl Scienas. Report of the Special Commis­sion on the Social Sciences of the National Science Board. Wash­ington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1969.

;; National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, The Behavioral and Social Scimces: Outlook and Nel'dl. A report by the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Commiuee Under the Auspicies of the Committee on Science and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, and the Committee on Problems and P~)licy, Social Science Research Council. Washington, D.C.: NatIonal Academy of Sciences, 1969.

6 National Science Board, Scil'll(,(' inriimton-I972. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1973.

7 Delphi is the name for a set of techniques used to ohtain collective judgments on issues which cannot be resolved on the basis of hard data or well-established theories.

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

tation. Because the Division supported so few projects of a scale or a character requiring Board review, Board members had little occasion to acquire an in­depth knowledge of the Division's activities; since the composition of the Board changes over time, mem· bers often held rather parochial (as well as erroneous) views of the social sciences in general and of the social sciences as they existed within NSF. I have good rea­son to believe, therefore, that until the social indica­tors presentation, the Board never drew a connection between science indicators and social science, no less between science indicators and the programs of NSF's Division of Social Sciences. The presentation there­fore accomplished an unintended but important ob­jective: it made the Board aware that it was itself engaged in a social scientific activity.

A sustained reputation

The favorable image of social indicators within the Foundation at the outset remained intact throughout the life of the program. This phenomenon held true not only from the National Science Board's perspec­tive, but more generally with respect to the National Science Foundation as a whole. The "nuggets" emerging from NSF-supported social indicators projects were partially responsible for this state of affairs. ("Nuggets" in the jargon of the Foundation are compact items of readily communicable informa­tion representing scientific developments suitable for transmission to the news media or useful in connec­tion with such specialized media as the Foundation's widely distributed Annual Report or as background material in the Foundation's budgetary documents. They are submitted by program officers and pass, by a process of selection, through many hands up the various administrative levels of NSF.) Successful nuggets, i.e., either near misses or those which actu­ally appear in one form of publication or another, can make a program more visible than any other form of program output. Social indicators nuggets, although perhaps not numerous, were absorbing to natural as well as social scientists; they were varied and often colorful. Eyecatching graphic representations were sometimes possible-a rarity in the social sciences. For example, NSF's 1977 Annual Report illustrated social indicators by a large array of shaded clock faces showing the changing patterns of time use in the United States.8

8 Based on data supplied by F. Thomas Juster and Frank P. Stafford, directors of the National Time Use Data Series. Univer­sity of Michigan.

SEPTEMBER 1984

A nugget which exemplifies the use of visual metaphors to simplify the communication of highly complex social indicator information was derived from an article entitled "Facing the Nation" prepared by Howard Wainer of the Educational Testing Ser­vice (Princeton, New Jersey). The technique of display-one which capitalizes on the human ability to perceive and remember small variations in the structure of human faces-was developed by Herman Chernoff, a mathematician at the Massachusetts In­stitute of Technology. The technique involves letting the size, shape, or orientation of each feature of a cartoon face represent one particular variable. Thus, in Wainer's utilization of the technique, income was represented by the curvature of the mouth, crime rate by width of the nose, education level by slant of the eyes, and so forth. Using state-level data drawn from public use files and performing the transformations required by Chernoffs technique, Wainer prqjected the faces onto a map of the United States to produce a state.by-state comparative display of multidimensional information which the viewer can grasp quickly by the gestalt of the faces or discern more carefully by an examination of individual fea­tures.

Other factors also played a role in program popu­larity. For instance, some social indicator projects produced offshoots which proved to be eye openers to colleagues in other parts of NSF and left them impressed with the versatility of the field. Albert D. Biderman's . "kinostatistics" or Graphic Social Re­porting Project at the Bureau of Social Science Re­search (Washington, D.C.) and Henry M. Peskin's Environmental Asset Accounts Project at Resources for the Future (Washington, D.C.) are two examples. The former contributed greatly to a revival of interest in high-quality statistical graphics, a revival which now encompasses the wider statistical community; and it also led to the formation of a pan-disciplinary organization (the Council on Social Graphics) which spans fields of science and engineering as distinct from one another as architecture, computer science, museum management, demography, telecommuni­cations, semiotics, economics, and holography. The Resources for the Future project developed a system of water quality network models capable of assessing the effects of federal water pollution control regu­lations on the nation's water resources. The system was adopted for use by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the De­partment of the Interior. The data bases on which the system operates were assembled as part of an earlier social indicators prqject conducted by 10 senior in-

35

vestigators located at different academic and non­profit institutions but operating under the coor­dinating sponsorship of the National Bureau of Eco­nomic Research. This earlier project was aimed at making the National Income and Product Accounts into a more complete socioeconomic accounting framework.

An unusual form of recognition took place when staff of the Council's social indicators Center con­ducted a series of interviews with NSF program di­rectors who had planning responsibilities in major areas of collaborative endeavor in the natural sciences (e.g., research operations in the Antarctic, Interna­tional Biological Years, observations of rare as­tronomical events). The purpose was to see what could be learned from the strategies employed by natural scientists in managing the intellectual, finan­cial, and logistical aspects of such efforts. Many of these officials long afterward expressed a fascination with the idea of analogous planning activities in an area such as social indicato·rs; almost all were willing to participate in a series of seminars which, the Center thought at one time, it might organize to bring plan­ners in the various areas into contact with the prob­lems of planning for coordinated research in a spe­cific field of the social sciences.

While the seminars to bring together planners from the social and natural sciences never materialized, an analogous and in many ways more significant event recently took place under the auspices of the Center's governing body, the Committee on Social Indicators. This event grew out of the Center's explorations into the subject of forecasting and its relation to social indicator development. A conference on forecasting in the social and natural sciences was held at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boul­der, Colorado, on June 10-13, 1984. The conference involved participation by prominent members of the social and natural sciences communities, and in­cluded papers on topics which ranged across the scope, methods, limitations, impacts, and conse­quences of forecasting from the perspectives of fields as diverse as agricultural science, atmospheric science, ecology, economics, evaluation research, and social indicators (see pages 47-48).

To return to the National Science Board, here the favorable image of social indicators had a firmer and more continuous basis as a result of the Board's on­going familiarity with the social indicators program through more-frequent-than-customary presenta­tions, and through research outputs of that program which proved helpful to the Board's Science Indicators series. The best example of the latter was the work of

36

Nestor E. Terleckyj and collaborators under the proj­ect "Indicators of the State of Science and Research." The compendium of indicators encompassed by the Board's first two Science Indicators volumes were based mostly on human and financial resources devoted to research and development and on educational inputs such as enrollments and degrees awarded in the sci­ences at institutions of higher learning. Terleckyj's project, conducted under the auspices of the National Planning Association (Washington, D.C.), was aimed at producing a variety of additional indicators-the main emphasis being on indicators of the effects of science and research upon the economy and society. Indicators of this sort were, and are, of intense inter­est to the Board, and Terleckyj prepared a chart­book summary of the project's results9 for distribu­tion to Board members-prior to commercial publica­tion of the charts and tables accompanied by in­terpretive text a year later. 10

The influence of the State of Science and Research project on the Board's Science Indicators series is diffi­cult to gauge in any direct way. The specific indicators which Terleckyj and collaborators proposed were neither developed further nor added to the battery of indicators appearing in subsequent Science Indicators volumes. Even where suggestions of influence may be inferred from the treatment given to areas of overlap with State of Science and Research indicators in suc­ceeding Science Indicators publications, the extent of influence cannot be assessed since there were other avenues used by the Board to expand and enhance the quantitative measures forming the core around which the Science Indicators series is built. However, that the Board was cognizant of the State of Science and Research project is evident from the fairly fre­quent citations to Terleckyj's writings and from tes­timony before congressional committees published in subsequent Science Indicators volumes.

A very important set of programmatic activities of whose influence there is absolutely no doubt took place under the auspices of the social indicators committee's Subcommittee on Science Indicators. The subcommittee's early impact is publically ac­knowledged in the second volume in the Science Indi­cators series, 11 in whose preface the Board expresses its

N Nestor E. Terieckyj, Slate of Science and Research: Some New Indimlors. Washington, D.C.: National Planning Association, 1976.

10 Nestor E. Terleckyj, editor. Slale of Science and Research: Some Nl'UI Indicators. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1977.

II National Science Board, Science Indimwrs-1974. Washing­ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1975.

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

appreciation to the Council for sponsoring a sym­posium and publishing a critical review of the Board's first Science Indicators report. Later symposia centered on the contents of subsequent Science Indicators vol­umes, such as that occurring in connection with the publication of Science Indicators-1976, which was at­tended by current and former Board members and whose proceedings were later published in a special issue of an international science policy journal. 12 An­other lasting achievement of the subcommittee is em­bodied in the highly-regarded volume Toward a Metric of Science. 13

It should not be concluded that the Board's favor­able view of social indicators was derived solely from its special concern with science indicators. The amount of international and domestic governmental activity devoted to social indicators and social reporting made a strong impression on the Board; social indicators were apparently having many real-world impacts, and in the Board's eyes this imposed a special responsibil­ity for NSF to remain aware and alert to the effects of its own projects in the area. In fact, in 1977 the Board decided that social indicators were too important to be left exclusively to social scientists. Accordingly, it mandated the inclusion of two nonsocial scientists on the Council's Committee on Social Indicators as a condition of future support, and the Council re­sponded positively.

The great decompression

If the Foundation's experience with social indica­tors was so happy, why was the social indicators pro­gram discontinued? Actually, discontinued is not pre­cisely the right term. It is still appropriate for re­searchers to submit social indicators proposals to NSF. Grants are still being made that are either ex­plicitly or implicitly related to social indicators devel­opment or to other aspects of the "social indicators movement," such as social accounting, social report­ing, and social forecasting. But it is nonetheless true that no program in the formal sense of the term exists. What happened?

The short answer is that, toward the close of the 1970s, social indicators began to fade as a distinguish­able field of research. An area of endeavor which

12 Harriet Zuckerman and Roberta B. Miller, editors, "Science Indicators: Implications for Research and Policy." Scientometncs, 2(5-6):327-468, October 1980.

13 Yehuda Elkana; Joshua Lederberg; Robert K. Merton; Ar­nold Thackray; and Harriet Zuckerman. editors, Toward a Metric lif Science: Thl' Advent oj Science Indimtors. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1978.

SEPTEMBER 1984

emerged in the borderlands between disciplines, social indicators retained its identity so long as it re­mained compressed, as it were, between established disciplinary domains. I would describe what was happening at the close of the 1970s as the beginning of a great decompression. This same observation has been reported in a number of recent articles, though not all agree on the exact timing of events or the nature of the process. The following are some exam­ples of what I mean.

In a paper prepared for delivery at the 1982 World Congress of Sociology, Wolfgang Glatzer predicted that because of the field's "potential for diversity," social indicator approaches are more likely to become integrated into the older, better-established areas of research than to continue as an independent research tradition. 14

Reviewing the history and progress of the social indicators movement against the background of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Devel­opment (OECD) Social Indicators Programme, Henri Verwayen noted that:

The modern social indicators movement originated in a time of great prosperity in western countries .... A time in which the issue of economic growth as the overriding concern of gov­ernments came under increasing attack .... The world has not continued. however. along a smooth pathway on which ever growing resources could be "better" allocated .... practically all countries have had to adjust during the past decade or so to the twin effects of a severe recession and structural changes in world markets .... Although this drastic change in economic conditions has not invalidated the basic premises of the social indicators movement. ... it certainly has affected the margins between which the movement has run its course. 15

A more formal analysis was recently published by Howard D. White, who with some assistance from the Center performed a large-scale bibliographic analysis of authors and works associated with the social indicators movement. 16 The results of White's

H Wolfgang Glatzer. "Actors and Approaches in Social Indi­cators Research." Paper prepared for the symposium "Problems of Social Indicators: Their Role in Social Development." Tenth World Congress of Sociology, Mexico City. August 1982.

15 Henri Verwayen. "Social Indicators: Actual and Potential Uses." Socia/Indicators Research. 14(1): 11-12, January 1984.

16 Howard D. White. "A Cocitation Map of the Social Indicators Movement." Journal oj the American Society Jor lriformation Science, 34(5):307-312. September 1983. The technique White em­ployed-a variant of citation analysis combined with multi­dimensional scaling-assumes that within the corpus of pub­lished documents constituting the literature of a scientific spe­cialty. the frequency with which authors cite one another can be made to yield a portrait of the substantive structure of that spe­cialty, showing. for instance. whether groups of authors tend to form clusters characterized by differences in concept, method,

37

analysis imply that in the 1980s, the area of social indicators activity most likely to grow, and presum­ably advance, is one peopled by investigators who are not strongly identified with the field and whose re­search, despite its association with social indicators contexts, might just as easily be classified "mainstream quantitative sociology" as anything else. White's study has special meaning for NSF's social indicators pro­gram because it supports the view that in the 1970s it was becoming increasingly difficult to identify re­search that qualified as social scientific and was dis­tinctively social indicators in character.

Reviewing social indicators accomplishments in the December 1983 issue of Item\-a special issue devoted to the Council's program in social indicators­Kenneth Prewitt concurred with the results of the White study when he wrote, "Perhaps the main diffi­culty facing any serious assessment of social indica­tors, and the Council's role in developing them, is the blending of social indicators with contemporary trends in quantitative social science."17 And in that same issue, Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, whose scientific and administrative activities have been of enormous influence on the development of the field, asserted that the field could have been looked upon as evanes­cent from the outset. She wrote:

Never did I view social indicators as an endeavor separate from the disciplines. It was not intended to be a distinct discipline, as one may view sociolinguistics. It was instead a cross-disciplinary effort that could be absorbed by the disciplines: an intellectual effort to which sociologists, economists, social psychologists, political scientists, and others could contribute""

In comments I contributed to that same issue of Item~, I too offered a view of social indicators as an effort of limited life span, comparing it to NSF's in­volvement in the International Decade of Ocean Ex­ploration (IDOE) and pointing to similarities in both the obstacles to achievement and the achievements of the twO. lli IDOE was a decade-long, multinational exploration of the possibilities for monitoring the world's oceans. Social indicators can be interpreted as

style, or technique. White's analysis ultimately produced a "map" providing a spatial depiction of the different clusters revealed by the analytic procedure, along Wilh the degree of overlap or nonoverlap among them.

17 Kenneth Prewitt, "Council Reorganizes Its Work in Social Indicators." Itelns , 37(4) :77, Decemher 1983.

IS Eleanor B. Sheldon, "Recollections and Views of Key Figures in the Social Indicators Program:' Items, 37(4):80, December 1983.

I" Murray Aborn, "Recollections and Views of Key Figures in the Social Indicators Program." items, 37(4):86, December 198:t

38

a similar attempt at exploration, this time in societal monitoring-although the attempt was unintegrated and small in scale compared with IDOE. The marine biologists and physical scientists who worked within IDOE during its 10 years of existence carried the lessons learned along with the gains in knowledge and technique back to their parent disciplines when the cross-disciplinary effort was over. The same may be said for the dissolution of social indicators. In ret­rospect, it was a special effort to provide a more scientific basis for the measurement and reporting of social conditions and the analysis of long-term social change. Some of the concepts and techniques ema­nating from the effort are becoming institu­tionalized in the traditional social science disciplines, according to Wolfgang Glatzer, and the effort itself is undergoing a process which Robert K. Merton has termed "obliteration by incorporation."

Data resources and other data-related initiatives re­ceived great impetus from, as well as general nurtur­ing under, the social indicators program, but by the early 1980s they had become too broadly associated with the quantitative approach per se in social science to be identified exclusively with any single field of endeavor. The state of affairs with respect to data re­sources may be judged from the contents of the table on page 39, which describes nine of the larger large­scale data projects being supported by the Division at the time we ceased placing grants under the social indicators rubric. It is not difficult to imagine how any or all of these data resources might be utilized in the pursuit of social indicators development, but it is also not difficult to imagine how they might be utilized in other types of social science research.

None of this should be taken as grounds for be­moaning the passing of social indicators as a visible program within NSF. The program ended the way it began, as an initiative commanding broad interest and high esteem. During its lifetime, the program made salient contributions to the survival of social science at the Foundation, and some of its off­shoots-like the recent conference on forecasting in the social and natural sciences (see pages 47-48) -may have planted the seeds for the future wel­fare and growth of the social sciences in NSF.

Social accounting

Referring once again to the December 1983 issue of ltem\' devoted to a review of the Council's social indi­cators program, the Council's position on the policy­analytic potential of the field comes through quite clearly. Both Eleanor Sheldon and Robert Parke,

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 7,/3

en to:

:;j to: ::: c:: to: ;t: -CD 00 ~

~ CD

Large-scale Data Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation's Division of Social and Economic Science through Fiscal Year 1982

Project Title

Data Archives of the ICPSR

1940/50 Census Public Use Sample Files

National Election Studies

General Social Survey

National Time Use Data Series

Panel Study of Family Income Dynamics

Quality of Life Survey Series

Longitudinal Establishment Data Base

Environmental Asset Data Bases

Description

The Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) processes, documents, conserves, and disseminates major data collections deposited by private and public agencies

Public use samples from the 1940 and 1950 decennial censuses compatible with the public use files for the 1960, 1970, and 1980 censuses

Biennial pre- and postelection national surveys dating from 1952 to the present

Cross-sectional surveys, mostly annual, on attitudes and values regarding so­~ietal institutions and major social Issues

T ime budgets gathered periodically from nationally representative samples of American households

Annual information on the economic fortunes of 5,000 American families together with the families formed by children of the original sample

Replicated sample surveys of objec­tive life conditions and the respondent's subjective assessments of their qual­ity

Data from the Annual Survey of Man­ufacturers and the Census of Man­ufacturers matched and merged into­over-time files preserving confidenti­ality

Collation of large numbers of diverse data sets pertaining to specified fea­tures of the physical environment and studies of their valuation

Project Director(s) and Sponsoring

Institution

Jerome M. Clubb, Gregory M. Marks, University of Michigan

H. H . Winsborough, Karl E. Taeuber, Robert M. Hauser University of Wisconsin

Warren E. Miller University of Michigan

James A. Davis, Thomas Smith, Norman M. Bradburn National Opinion Research Center

F. Thomas Juster, Frank P. Stafford University of Michigan

Greg J. Duncan University of Michigan

Philip E. Converse, Angus Campbell Univel:5ity of Michigan

Richard Ruggles, Nancy D. Ruggles Yale University

Henry M. Peskin, Resources for the Future

Cumulative Funding

$7,500,000

$6,000,000

$3,425,000

$1,900,000

$1,850,000

$1,343,000

$750,000

$600,000

$500,000

Other Sources of Support

National Endowment for the Humanities

U.S. Bureau of the Census

Foundation for Child Development

U.S. Department Health & Human Services; Rocke­feller and Sloan foundations

Russell Sage Foundation

U.S. Bureau of the Census; Small Business Adminis­tJ·ation

Environmental Protection Agency

former director of the Council's Center for Coordi­nation of Research on Social Indicators, make plain that the role of indicators in public policy formation was viewed as strictly secondary to the fulfillment of a research agenda. Parke stated:

The rhetoric of the social indicators movement in the 1960s was laden with suggestions that social indicators would have fairly visible political consequences. It fell to the Council to assert the primacy of social research, to say that political promises must be set aside for the time being, that social science is not ready to deliver on them: the first task is a research task.20

At NSF we understood the Council's wish to avoid involvement with the widespread tendency to oversell social indicators politically; we needed no reminders of the dangers posed by premature forays into the political arena. Nonetheless, we did not see this as a reason to bar the subfield of social accounting from eligibility under the social indicators program. Al­though social accounting is normally thought to have a policy guidance if not policy formulation orienta­tion, it too can be the subject of research. In fact, we saw research on social accounting as one important means of developing what social indicators would ul­timately require for their unambiguous interpreta­tion: frameworks and models representing the con­ceptual basis for undertaking societal measurements in the first place. At any rate, no review of NSF's social indicators program would be complete without a report on this component of the program and a tribute to the 25 or so principal investigators who attempted implementation of the incredibly com­plex and extraordinarily ambitious research pro­spectus set forth by Bertram Gross in the mid-1960s.21

. Five major social accounting projects were sup­ported undei- the program. Other sponsored work either was, or is, in some way related to these five major efforts. An excellent summation and critique of four of these projects, along with more general per­spectives on the whole social accounting enterprise, may be found in Juster and Land.22 The conference from which the Juster and Land volume emerged was held under the sponsorship of the Council's Com­mittee on Social Indicators, so that the gulf dividing the Council and NSF on the policy-relatedness issue was not really all that deep.

20 Robert Parke, "Recollections and Views of Key Figures in the Social Indicators Program," 36(4):82, December 1983.

21 Bertram M. Gross, "The State of the Nation: Social Systems Accounting." In Raymond A. Bauer, editor, Socia! Indimtors. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1966.

22 F. Thomas Juster and Kenneth C. Land, editors, Socia! Ac­rtJullting Systems: Essays on thl' Statl' I!fthe Art. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

40

For a decade, these projects withstood substantive reviews, but by 1981 there was a consensus that this entire line of research had reached the limits permit­ted by both the state of the art and the levels of funding which could justifiably be invested in it. The result has been a mothballing of some projects, the dissolution of others, and the continued operation of three in a very low-key, basic research mode.

Although the current mode of accounting research supported by NSF is basic and low-key, one of the projects launched under the program has evoked the strong interest of the official keepers of the National Income and Product Accounts at the Department of Commerce. The Measurement of Economic and So­cial Performance project was disbanded in 1978, but Richard and Nancy D. Ruggles continued their re­search on the basic problem of revising the existing system of national accounts so as to provide a single framework for economic and social data at different levels of aggregation, from micro to macro, and em­bracing stocks as well as £1ows.23

Social accounting is one pillar of the social indica­tors movement still standing. Another is social re­porting, mainly practiced abroad insofar as gov­ernmental activity goes, but currently being kept active in the private sector by the Council's reorgan­ized Committee on Social Indicators, chaired by Kenneth C. Land, University of Texas. However, the major emphasis in social reporting seems to be on re­porting per se rather than on any attempt to do what I would consider to be research on this important sub­ject.

Epilogue

Suppose, for a moment, that 1985 witnesses the inauguration of a Mondale presidency and that President Mondale implements by executive fiat what Senator Mondale had tried to accomplish by legisla­tion; i.e., he creates a Council of Social Advisors simi­lar in purpose and function to the Council of Eco­nomic Advisors. 24 Suppose further that the creation of such a Council leads inexorably to preparations for the publication of an annual social report of the president, also envisioned under the earlier-proposed legislation, and the establishment of a system of na-

23 Richard Ruggles and Nancy D. Ruggles, "Integrated Eco­nomic Accounts for the United States, 1947-80." Survey of Current Business, Bureau of Economic Analysis, u.s. Department of Commerce, 62(5):2-75, May 1982.

24 ClJlzgreniona! Record Senllte, S15314, "Full Opportunity and National Goals and Priorities," September 1973.

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

tional social accounts. If all this were to occur, would the social sciences be better equipped to assist with the accomplishment of social indicators objectives than they were at the beginning of the social indicators movement? The answer to this question is surely in the affirmative. Ongoing work in European countries such as Sweden and West Germany continues to fur­nish models of academic-governmental cooperation in the area of social reporting. The technology for data-base management and analysis has made enor­mous strides since the mid-1960s. And even if a rather small number of social scientists was actually exposed to the social indicators experience of the past 20 years, there is no dearth of lessons to be drawn from that experience.

Nonetheless, I should think that the most impor­tant single factor in the success of any future revival of the social indicators movement will not be what the social sciences have to offer, but rather the extent to

which society has shaped itself around the concepts underlying the employment of social indicators, as well as the mechanisms for their production. In general, social scier:tce proceeds with the active participation of its subjects of study, and so must social indicators. In her 1975 book on social indicators, Judith deNeuf­ville states:

If indicators are to be accepted and trusted by various sides of a discussion, they require an institutionalized life, somewhat re­moved from the immediacy of day-to-day politics. They also seem to require a basis in some consensus about their concepts and methods and the appropriateness of their use in particular contexts. Moreover, if they even appear to be manipulable by those in powei', they will not serve as neutral information car­riers in a policy discussion, but will rather be ignored.25 0

25 Judith I. deNeufville, Sociallndicatrm lind Public Policy . New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., 1975, page 24 :~ .

Biosocial Perspectives on Child Abuse and Neglect

THE COMMIITEE ON BIOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON

PARENT BEHAVIOR AND OFFSPRING DEVELOPMENT

held a conference on May 20-23, 1984 at the Breck­inridge Conference Center, York, Maine, to bring a biosocial approach to the study of child abuse and neglect. The majority of research and theory on child abuse in the United States has relied on medical, psychological dynamics, and social stress models, and much attention has been devoted to policy and social service issues. Little effort, however, has been de­vote$i to comparing the situation of child abuse in the United States to abuse in other societies, past or pres­ent, or in other species.

This three-day conference examined cross-cultural, evolutionary, historical, and cross-species research of relevance to offspring abuse and neglect. These com­bined comparative approaches constitute the com­mittee's biosocial perspective on human behavior. The value of applying a biosocial perspective to the problem of human child abuse lies in the wider di­mension through time and space that it adds to mod­ern studies. It takes the focus off child abuse as a social or psychological pathology by demonstrating how offspring abuse is restricted neither t.o the human species nor to modern history. It directs at­tention to questions about when and where a pattern

SEPTEMBER 1984

of abuse might be expected to occur at high frequen­cies because of the social and ecological contexts in which reproductive units are found. The perspective emphasizes the importance of biological relatedness in shaping social interactions.

Communication between the different disciplines (anthropology, pediatrics, psychology, psychiatry, primatology, sociology, and zoology) and perspectives

. brought together for the meeting considered the definition and conceptualization of abuse, which re­main problematic concerns in research and treat­ment, in addition to examining the identification of etiological factors and possible consequences.

Program sessions were organized around four themes.

Cross-cultural and historical perspectives

Although not yet synthesized, there has been a re­cent growth in attention to cross-cultural and histori­cal aspects of child abuse and neglect. Various reports present preliminary data which suggest that the vio­lent forms of child abuse and neglect prevalent in our own society are rare or unknown in traditional societies but are becoming of greater and greater concern as traditional societies modernize. The value

41

of the cross-cultural and historical record in pro­moting a better understanding of this worldwide phenomenon lies in the opportunities which these resources provide for independently analyzing the effects of such factors as population shifts from rural to urban contexts, various family structure adap­tations to modern economic systems, and changes in family size and child spacing based on the loss of traditional forms of family planning such as infan­ticide and long lactation amenorrhea. Recent an­thropological attention does not directly exploit this potential, but this growing interest and this expertise were brought together in the conference.

An evolutionary perspective

Recent developments in evolutionary theory stress the importance of two major concepts in the shaping of the biology and behavior of a species: kin selection and parental investment. These concepts are especially suited to the understanding of human social life since the human line made what turned out to be an enduring and fundamental commitment to the family as the m<tior mechanism of adaptation to the social and ecological environment. Crucial elements of the human pattern include high levels of both female and male parental investment, a division of labor between parents, and a long period of child dependence upon adults for food, protection, and learning.

The value of kin selection theory is that it places a fresh emphasis on the shared biological and g..enetic interests of close relatives extending beyond the parent-child relationship to include the grand­parental generation, siblings, and cousins. Parental investment theory focuses on both the complemen­tary and the competing interests of parents, off-' spring, and siblings: it includes degrees of relatedness and biological and psychological needs. A variety of researchers from anthropology, psychology, sociol­ogy, and zoology are applying various aspects of pa­rental investment and kin selection theory to the understanding of both nonhuman primates' and hu­mans' reproductive strategies and evolutionary his­tory. A number have used this perspective to grapple with widespread patterns of behavior which appear against the interests of the individuals concerned; offspring abuse and neglect is one such behavior. This research was also represented at t~~ meeting.

Developmental issues: Susceptibility and consequences

Considerable attention has been devoted to exam­ining abuse and neglect among children thought to be

42

at the greatest risk. However, few conferences have tried to consider the developmental aspects of abuse and neglect. Are risk factors different at various de­velopmental stages? They seem to be, but there has been little systematic discussion of the basis of the relationship between risk and developmental level. What are the developmental consequences of child abuse and neglect? If a child is abused at age two, will he or she be abused in later life? Do abused children grow up to be abusive toward their parents? If so, when and why? The development of parental com­petence needs to be examined in the context of op­portunities for experience in parenting. Are parents of certain ages more at risk for abuse and what is the effect of the onset of parenting early or late in the life cycle? These questions suggest a need to bring a child and family developmental perspective to the study of abuse and neglect, both to identify gaps in empirical data and to expand the theoretical frameworks which are generally brought to bear on the study of abuse and neglect.

Nonhuman primate models

The value of nonhuman primate models for studies of child abuse is that they can be used to isolate experimentally factors such as parental and child age and health, emotional states such as stress, conditions of maternal rearing, and immediate social context. For example, the effects of subadult versus adult maternal age on child abuse can be studied in nonhuman primates without any of the complicating factors of single-parenting, illegitimacy, or school dropout status. Laboratory-reared nonhuman pri­mates reach pubertal maturation at earlier ages than those in the wild. In fact, there seems to be a secular trend toward decreasing age at puberty in labora­tory-reared nonhuman primates, comparable to the secular trend found in humans. The maternal failure of first-time primate mothers in the laboratory may be due to their emotional, cognitive, and biological immaturity as well as to their primiparous status. Nonhuman primates offer excellent opportunities to study the relationship of age, context, and experience to parental behavior patterns.

Field research is essential for understanding off­spring abuse among primates. The best biological definition of successful parenting is to raise offspring who themselves survive to raise offspring in the natu­ral environment. The evaluation of a "good" primate mother cannot be found in the behavior patterns of the laboratory environment where maternal care may be the only activity available to a female other than

VOl.UME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

periodic feeding and rest. I t is remarkable that nearly all detailed information we have on normal maternal care and attachment in nonhuman primates comes from studies of mothers with no predators or infan­ticidal males to contend with and with no need to put in long hours of foraging each day simply to maintain their health and that of their infants. Recent field work on primates has revealed remarkable dif­ferences, at the taxonomic levels of species, genus, and family, in what constitutes appropriate maternal care and maternal investment. Furthermore, long­term field studies reveal significant degrees of pa­rental investment in infants even in species which are promiscuous or dominance-oriented in mating pat­terns. Other long-term field studies reveal remark­able environmental influences on parental investment in male and female offspring.

Communication between researchers in child abuse and researchers interested in primate models was one central theme of the meeting.

The program consisted of the following sessions and presentations:

( I) Cross-cultural and historical perspectives Richard Gelles, "What to Learn from Cross-Cultural and Histori­

cal Research: An Overview" Jill Korbin, "Child Maltreatment and the Cultural Context: Cur­

rent Knowledge and Future Directions" Sheila Ryan johansson, "Historical Demography and the Impact

of Modernization and Social Change on Sex Ratios of Chil­dren"

Commentator: Maris A. Vinovskis

(2) Evolutionary perspectives Jeanne Altmann, "The Evolution of Behavior and Socially­

Induced Morality" Sarah Hrdy, "Sex Bias in Parental Investment Strategies Among

Birds and Mammals" Euclid O. Smith, "External and Internal Influences on Aggres-

sion in Captive Group-Living Monkeys" Commentator: Kathleen R. Gibson

(3) Developmental issues: Susceptibility and consequences James Garbarino, "An Ecological Perspective on Outcomes: What

Difference Will the Differences Make?" Carolyn Newberger, "Developmental Perspectives on Par­

enthood: Implications for Child Abuse and Neglect"

SEPTEMBER 1984

Martin Reite, "Child Abuse: A Comparative and Psychobiological Perspective"

Byron Egeland, "Issues Related to the Developmental Conse­quences of Child Maltreatment"

Dante Cicchetti, "Report on a Longitudinal Study" Commentator: Charles M. Super

(4) Children at risk Martin Daly, "Children as Homicide Victims" Margo Wilson, "Risks to Children with Substitute Parents" Commentator: Michael E. Lamb

The participants at the conference were:

Jeanne Altmann Dante Cicchetti Martin Daly Byron Egeland james Garbarino Richard J. Gelles Kathleen R. Gibson Sarah Hrdy Sheila Ryan Johansson

jill Korbin

Michael E. Lamb Jane B. Lancaster Carolyn Moore Newberger Anne Petersen Martin Reite Alice S. Rossi Euclid O. Smith Charles M. Super

Maris A. Vinovskis Margo Wilson

University of Chicago Harvard University McMaster University University of Minnesota Pennsylvania State University University of Rhode Island University of Texas University of California, Davis University of California,

Berkeley Case Western Reserve

University University of Utah University of Oklahoma Harvard Medical School Pennsylvania State University University of Colorado University of Massachusetts Emory University Harvard School of Public

Health University of Michigan McMaster University

Members of the committee during 1983-84 were Jane B. Lancaster, University of Oklahoma (chair); Richard J. Gelles, University of Rhode Island; Kath­leen R. Gibson, University of Texas (Houston); Bea­trix A. Hamburg, Mt. Sinai Medical Center (New York); Melvin J. Konner, Emory University; Michael E. Lamb, University of Utah; Anne Petersen, Penn­sylvania State University; Charles M. Super, Harvard University; and Maris A. Vinovskis, University of Michigan. Lonnie R. Sherrod serves as staff. 0

43

Fellowships and Grants for International Research Offered for 1985-86

THE COUNCIL HAS ANNOUNCED the application dates for the international research fellowships and grants it will offer in 1984-85. The awards-which are de­scribed below-are for the academic year 1985-86. The awards made in 1983-84 are listed on pages 52-59 of this issue of Items.

International Doctoral Research Fellowships are offered by a series of committees sponsored jointly by the Council and the American Council of Learned Societies. Applicants must be graduate students in the social sciences, the humanities, or professional fields who will have completed all requirements for the Ph.D. except the dissertation at the time the fellow­ship is to begin.

These fellowships are for doctoral dissertation re­search to be carried out in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East, Western Europe, or for cross-area research. (See the adjacent box for a new program in Russian and Soviet studies.) Applications are due on November I, 1984.

International Postdoctoral Research Grants are also available through the jointly sponsored committees. The grants are offered for research in or on Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Near and Middle East. They may be used to support re­search on one country, comparative research between countries within an area, or comparative research between areas. There is also a special program for collaborative research on Latin America between American and foreign scholars. The deadline for all postdoctoral research applications is December I, 1984.

Indochina Studies grants are available to support re­search, writing, and the archiving of materials on Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, drawing on the knowledge and experience of the refugees who have left these three countries since 1975, and who are now residing in North America. Interested researchers, writers, journalists, artists, and other professionals and scholars should submit a letter outlining the proposed project, as well as their own qualifications. Specifically excluded are projects concerned with the American experience in Indochina, and the experi­ence of Indochina refugees in North America. Grant applications must be received by December I, 1984.

44

Application procedure. Persons interested in applying for any of these awards should write to the Council for its new fellowship and grants brochure. Applica­tions must be submitted on forms provided by the Council. Inquiries concerning fellowships and grants for China and Eastern Europe should be addressed to the American Council of Learned Societies, 228 East 45th Street, New York, New York 10017.

The awards program cosponsored with the Ameri­can Council of Learned Societies is supported by the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the William and Flora Hewlett Founda­tion, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Japan-United States Friendship Commission. The Indochina Studies Program is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Henry Luce Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. D

New Fellowship Program in Russian and Soviet Studies

The Joint Committee on Soviet Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Re­search Council has announced a new fellowship program for the writing of doctoral dissertations in Russian and Soviet studies. This new program is supported in part by a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Stipends for up to 12 months will be offered to Ph.D. candidates in the humanities and social sciences who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States or who are enrolled in universities in the United States, and who have begun to write up their research results for their dissertations.

Applications are due on November 1, 1984. Successful applicants will be notified by December 15, 1984. Fellow­ships may begin as early as January 1, 1985 and must begin no later than September 1, 1986.

Interested persons should write to the Russian and Soviet Studies Program, Social Science Research Council, 605 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10158.

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

Current Activities at the Council New directors and officers

The Council's board of directors, at its meeting onJune 13, 1984, elected or re-elected four directors. Newly-elected to board membership for three-year terms were Sydel F. Silverman, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, from the American Anthropological Association, and Joseph A. Pechman, The Brookings Institution (Washington, D.C.), and Rodolfo Stavenhagen, EI Colegio de Mexico, both as directors-at-Iarge. Reelected to serve a three-year term was Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago, from the American Statistical Association.

The board also elected the Council's officers for 1984-85. Eleanor E. Maccoby, Stanford University, was elected chairman; Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie- Mellon University, was elected vice­chairman; Stephen M. Stigler was elected secretary; and Louise A. Tilly, New School for Social Research, was elected treasurer.

Joint Advisory Committee on International Studies ,

An ad hoc Committee on Area Studies was ap-pointed last year by the Council's Committee on Prob­lems and Policy (P&P) to consider means of (1) re­viewing the activities of the 11 area committees the Council sponsors jointly with the American Council of Learned Societies and (2) allocating among them core grant funds from the Ford and Hewlett foundations and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The committee members were Sidney Verba, Har­vard University (chair); Wendy O'Flaherty, University of Chicago; Hugh T. Patrick, Columbia University; Kenneth Prewitt, Social Science Research Council; Louise A. Tilly, New School for Social Research; Francis X. Sutton, Ford Foundation; and John William Ward, American Council of Learned Societies. David L. Szanton served as staff.

The committee met three times and in its final session spent an afternoon reviewing and clarifying its recommendations with the chairmen or represen­.tatives of all 11 joint committees.

The committee recommended, and P&P sub­sequently approved, the appointment of a Joint Advi­sory Committee on International Studies to advise both the Council and the American Council of Learned Societies. The Advisory Committee will have eight members jointly appointed by the presidents of

SEPTEMBER 1984

the two councils, some coming from the governing bodies of the two councils, others coming from out­side.

The primary function of the committee will be to recommend to the two councils an allocation of the core funds among the 11 joint area committees. In reaching its allocation recommendations, the com­mittee will be expected to respect the diversity of area committee structures, programs, and modes of oper­ation, which reflect the great variations in the com­position of the academic communities concerned with the various world areas, as well as their frequently distinctive intellectual needs and agenda.

Allocation recommendations would be made for two- or three-year periods. Detailed reviews of the well over 100 individual research planning projects of the area committees, or of the 150-200 individual awards they grant each year, will not be possible. However, the committee will examine overall area committee programs in light of the intellectual cur­rents and concerns of the particular field, the activi­ties of similar groups, alternative sources of funding, and the core costs of a committee program. The committee will be jointly financed and staffed by the two councils.

In addition, the committee will review and make recommendations to both councils regarding other issues and opportunities in the general area of inter­nation.al research. These may range from structural questions (government funding policies, research ac­cess problems, library or language training needs) to intellectual and programmatic opportunities such as potential linkages between area studies and other re­lated research traditions (comparative studies, devel­opment research), or new transnational or trans area topics which might be addressed either by linking existing area committee activities or by the formation of new cross-area programs.

Symposium on science and technology studies

On June 11, 1984 the Council's board of directors sponsored a symposium on science and technology studies. The symposium both celebrated the conclu­simi of a nine-year program in science and technol­ogy indicators (supported by a grant from the Na­tional Science Foundation) and initiated a program on computers and contemporary society (supported by a grant from the John and Mary R. Markle Foun­dation).

45

The presentations included:

(1) The politics of knowledge Arnold Thackray, University of Pennsylvania

"An Overview of the Field of Study" Theda Skocpol, University of Chicago

"Governmental Structures, Social Science, and the Develop­ment of Economic and Social Policies"

Loren Graham, Massachusetts Institute of Technology "Science Policy in the United States and the Soviet Union:

Citizen Participation in Policies Toward Molecular Biology"

(2) Studying the social consequences of technologies Gavriel Salomon, Tel Aviv University

"The Computer as Educator: Lessons from Television Re­search"

Roger E. Kasperson, Clark University "Information as a Hazardous Commodity"

Melvin Kranzberg, Georgia Institute of Technology "Looking Backwards: Studying the Social Consequences of the

Computer in the Year 2000"

In addition to the Council's board and staff, the participants included:

Murray Aborn Bernard Barber Orville G. Brim, Jr.

Charles N. Brownstein Jonathan R. Cole Peter de Janosi Kenkichiro Koizumi

Otto N. Larsen Richard W. Lyman Robert K. Merton Roberta Balstad Miller Lloyd N. Morrisett

Dorothy Nelkin Albert Rees David Robinson

Marshall Robinson John E. Sawyer Arnold Shore Laurence D. Stifel John J. Stremlau Francis X. Sutton Michael S. Teitelbaum Sherry Turkle

Eric Wanner Harriet Zuckerman

National Science Foundation Columbia University Foundation for Child

Development (New York) National Science Foundation Columbia University Russell Sage Foundation TBS Britannica Yearbook Co.

(Tokyo) National Science Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Columbia University National Science Foundation John and Mary R. Markle

Foundation Cornell University Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Carnegie Corporation of New

York Russell Sage Foundation Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Exxon Educational Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Rockefeller Foundation Ford Foundation Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Columbia University

Research opportunities in the behavioral and social sciences

The Council is cosponsoring-along with the Na­tional Research Council and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences-a study of the re-

46

search needs of the behavioral and social sciences over the next decade.

This Decade Outlook will be staffed by the National Research Council, and will be carried out by the Committee on Basic Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences-a committee of the National Re­search Council's Commission on Behavioral and So­cial Sciences and Education (CBASSE).

The committee was established in 1980 to assess and improve the vitality of research in the behavioral and social sciences. The first committee report, Be­havioral and Social Science Research: A National Resource (1982), was a general statement of the scientific value, significance, and social utility of behavioral and social science research. A second committee report, cur­rently in preparation, derives from a 1983 sym­posium on "Knowledge in Social and Behavioral Sci­ence: Discoveries and Trends Over Fifty Years."

These two committee projects concentrated on the past record and present dimensions of behavioral and social science. There is now a national commitment to expand the future scientific and technological base. Promising new research directions must be canvassed, resources needed to foster prospective advances must be defined and evaluated, and priorities for ad­ditional scientific research spending must be devel­oped and rigorously scrutinized. These processes are now occurring in nearly every major branch of sci­ence. The committee has thus decided to undertake a new study. The project, supported by the National Science Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, and other sponsors, will be completed in 1986.

The Decade Outlook will study scientific frontiers, leading research questions, and new resources needed over the next decade, roughly 1986-1995, for rapid progress on fundamental problems in the be­havioral and social sciences. The final report is to contain recommendations for research resources, facilities, and programs that may provide a high level of returns to fundamental knowledge. Research areas and new resource needs will be identified by the committee with substantial advice from many distin­guished senior level, midcareer, and promising younger scientists.

The members of the committee are R. Duncan Luce (cochair), Harvard University; Neil J. Smelser (cochair), University of California, Berkeley; Meinolf Dierkes, European Commission on the Social Sci­ences; John A. Ferejohn, Stanford University; Law­rence M. Friedman, Stanford University; Victoria A. Fromkin, University of California, Los Angeles; Rochel S. Gelman, University of Pennsylvania; Leo A. Goodman, University of Chicago; James G. Greeno,

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

University of Pittsburgh; Eugene A. Hammel, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley; Leonid Hurwicz, Uni­versity of Minnesota; Edward E. Jones, Princeton University; Gardner Lindzey, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences; Daniel L. McFad­den, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; James L. McGaugh, University of California, Irvine; James N. Morgan, University of Michigan; Richard L. Morrill, University of Washington; Sherry B. Ortner, Univer­sity of Michigan; Kenneth Prewitt, Social Science Re­search Council; Barbara G. Rosenkrantz, Harvard University; Nancy B. Tuma, Stanford University; and Allan R. Wagner, Yale University. Dean R. Gerstein and Sonja Sperlech of the National Research Council serve as staff to the committee.

The committee welcomes suggestions of topics for focused attention, and has announced the following criteria:

• A research problem area may now be stimulating many fruitful investigations, but it is believed that it can become more productive.

• A research problem area may be of great im­portance and ripe for substantial advances, even though the research has thus far been disappoint­ing or thin.

• A broad gap may exist in methods or theories rele­vant to many research problem areas.

• New infrastructures to facilitate research may be needed, such as regional or national laboratories, data centers, communications networks, specialized fellowships, etc.

Suggestion should be sent to either of the cochairs or to the staff at the following address:

National Research Council Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences

and Education 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418

Forecasting in the social and natural sciences

The Committee on Social Indicators sponsored a conference at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo~ado, on June 10-13, 1984, on forecasting in the social and natural scien­ces. The conference was cochaired by Kenneth C. Land, University of Texas, and Stephen H. Schneider of the Center, which is a facility for climatological, ocean sciences, and atmospheric research with lab­oratories on a mesa at the foot of the mountains west of Boulder. Messrs. Land and Schneider will co-edit the planned volume based on the conference. Sup­port for the conference was provided by a grant to the

SEPTEMBER 1984

Council from the Division of Social and Economic Science of the National Science Foundation.

An interest in anticipating the future lies at the heart of the field of social indicators: social indicators may provide not only a description of present condi­tions and an accounting for how society came to its present state, but also a set of clues as to where society might be going. However, forecasting has been a ne­glected area of study within the social indicators community. In response, the Committee on Social Indicators hypothesized that much could be learned through interchanges among scientists focusing on the formal methodologies applied in forecasting­whether the forecasts are for economic, social, or natural phenomena.

Papers were commissioned from forecasting spe­cialists in a variety of disciplines, including climatol­ogy, demography, ecology, economics, geography, oceanography, political science, psychology, sociol­ogy, statistics, and urban planning. A synthesis paper prepared by Messrs. Land and Schneider identified a number of similarities between social and natural sci­ence forecasts, including similar sources of uncer­tainty and errors, problems in the specification and estimation of statistical models, and limits on the ac­curacy of forecasts.

Several other issues and findings were common to a number of papers: • The question of whether theories that apply to

small scales of time or space can be inflated to larger scales with success

• The complex causal role of slowly-changing vari­ables (such as ocean temperature or class struc­ture) in near-term forecasts

• The need for formal comparisons (so called "fore­casting tournaments") of models of the same phe­nomenon

• The scientific value of counterintuitive forecasts, which may lead to questions about the data, the models, and "common sense"

• The special opportunities and problems of linkage of models from different subject areas, such as re­lating the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the energy use patterns of human settlements

• The discovery that addressing forecasting ques­tions on unconventional time scales seems often to require drawing on other disciplines: long-term economic forecasts must incorporate demographic change that has little effect on conventional quar­terly forecasts, and climates are affected by the oceans more than by the atmospheric dynamics on which daily weather depends

47

• The advantages and disadvantages of complex models as opposed to simpler methods, such as informed extrapolation

• The fact that forecasts invariably involve some ele­ment of human judgment and occur within a politi­cal context

• The observation that new supercomputers will greatly diminish the constraints once imposed on solving large, complex systems of equations

The following papers were discussed:

( 1) The forecasting context Robin L. Dennis, "Forecasting Errors and Their Conse­

quences: Causes and Consequences of the Denver VMT [Vehi­cle Miles Traveled] Forecast"

Herbert L. Smith, "The Social Forecasting Industry" Thomas R. Stewart, "Judgment and Forecasting: Method­

ological Implications of Judgment Research" Martin Wachs, "Forecasts in Urban Transportation Plan­

ning: Uses, Methods, and Dilemmas"

(2) Current developments in techniques and models Dennis A. Ahlburg, "Aggregate Economic-Demographic

Models" Clive W. J. Granger and Robert F. Engle, "Econometric Fore­

casting: A Brief Survey of Current and Future Techniques" John F. Long and David Byron McMillen, "A Survey of

Current Census Bureau Population Projection Methods" Kenneth G. Manton, "Models for Forecasting Morbidity" Joseph P. Martino, "Recent Developments in Technological

Forecasting"

(3) Predictability, errors, and verfication Richard A. Berk and Thomas F. Cooley, "Errors in Fore­

casting Social Phenomena" William C. Clark, "Scale Relationships in the Interactions of

Climates, Ecosystems, and Societies" James A. Davis, "The Predictability of Social Change: Evi­

dence from the GSS [General Social Survey]" Douglas A. Hibbs, Jr., "On the Predictive Accuracy of the

Time Series Models of Aggregate Voting Intentions in Great Britain: Evaluations Based on Ex-Post Forecasting Exper­iments"

Diana M. Liverman, "Forecasting the Impact of Climate on Food Systems: Model Testing and Model Linkage"

Richard C.J. Somerville, "The Predictability of Weather and Climate"

(4) Synthesis Kenneth C. Land and Stephen H. Schneider, "Forecasting in

the Social and Natural Sciences: Some Isomorphisms"

The participants at the conference were: Dennis A. Ahlburg J. Scott Armstrong Jesse Ausubel Fram;oise Bartiaux

Richard A. Berk

Thomas W. Bettge

48

University of Minnesota University of Pennsylvania National Academy of Sciences Institute of Astronomy and

Geophysics (Louvain) University of California, Santa

Barbara National Center for

Atmospheric Research

Donald Borock Lawrence R. Carter Robert Chen

Robert M. Chervin

William C. Clark

Niizhet Dalfes

James A. Davis Robin L. Dennis

Robert Dickinson

Michael H. Glantz

Clive W. J. Granger

Gregory Hayden Wilmot Hess

Douglas A. Hibbs, Jr. Judith Jacobsen Rick Katz

Kenneth C. Land Diana M. Liverman John F. Long Kenneth G. Manton Joseph P. Martino David B. McMillen Robert Rabin Walter Roberts

Andrei Rogers Mark J. Schervish Stephen H. Schneider

Herbert L. Smith Richard C. J. Somerville

Thomas R. Stewart

Michael A. Stoto Martin Wachs Frans Wille kens

Michel Verstraete

Jean Pascal van Ypersele

Gettysburg College University of Oregon University of North Carolina,

Chapel Hill National Center for

Atmospheric Research Institute for Energy Analysis

(Oak Ridge, Tennessee) National Center for

Atmospheric Research Harvard University Environmental Protection

Agency National Center for

Atmospheric Research National Center for

Atmospheric Research University of California, San

Diego University of Nebraska National Center for

Atmospheric Research Harvard University University of Colorado National Center for

Atmospheric Research University of Texas University of Wisconsin U.S. Bureau of the Census Duke University University of Dayton U.S. Bureau of the Census National Science Foundation University Corporation for

Atmospheric Research (Boulder, Colorado)

U,iversity of Colorado Carnegie- Mellon University National Center for

Atmospheric Research Indiana University Scripps Institution of

Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Academy of Sciences Rutgers University Netherlands Interuniversity

Demographic Institute (Voorburg)

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Richard C. Rockwell served as staff.

Resistance and rebellion in the Andean world

The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies and the University of Wisconsin jointly sponsored a

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

conference on "Resistance and Rebellion in the An­dean World, 18th-20th Centuries," held in Madison, on April 26-28, 1984. The conference, coordinated by Steve J. Stern, University of Wisconsin, is part of a larger committee project on Andean historiography, entitled "Markets, Coercion, and Responses in the Andean World." The conference served as a sequel to the conference on "Market Penetration and Expan­sion in the Andes" held in Sucre, Bolivia, in July 1983.

The topic of rebellion merited a conference in its own right because Andean rebellions of varying scope and ambition have erupted frequently since the 18th century. They have occasionally reached the point of full-scale insurrection, bringing lasting social and political consequences to the region. The conference on resistance and rebellion aimed to draw together and give new direction to research on native Andean action and ideology during such moments of crisis and violence, and to set them in historical perspective.

Three sessions explored these themes for the late colonial period, while three were devoted to the 19th and 20th centuries. The sessions on the colonial period took a skeptical view of recent interpretations of the socioeconomic correlates, causes, and geogra­phy of the great insurrections of the 1780s, seeking instead to develop the outlines of alternative in­terpretive schemes to explain both the rise of Andean insurrections and the nature of Andean participation in them. In particular, the papers and discussion called for renewed emphasis on aspec,ts of Andean consciousness-defined as the self-identifications, cultural meaning systems, interpretations of con­temporary society, and aspirations of Andean peoples that shaped their political outlooks and horizons-in understanding the causes and character of the rebel­lions.

One of the most stimulating sessions explored con­tinuities and changes in Andean consciousness in a long-term view spanning the 17th to early 19th cen­turies. This discussion provided a vivid feel for the complexities of the phenomenon, especially for the ways in which Andean consciousness might or might not be compatible with the legitimation of the wider social order and its hierarchies. The discussion also suggested ways in which utopian ideas could take on a certain life of their own even after their material and political underpinnings had faded.

The sessions on Andean rebellions during the 19th and 20th centuries, for their part, contributed to a historical perspective on the causes of rebellions and opened up new areas of debate about the contours of Andean consciousness. Papers identified both the "neo-colonial" character of many localized rebellions

SEPTEMBER 1984

as well as patterns of interaction between native An­dean peoples and official national political structures in order to explain cross-ethnic alliances and their breakdowns in 'terms that took into account Andean political initiatives and expectations. The relationship of Andean peasantry to the "nation," and Andean attempts to account for the importance of both ethnicity and class during the course of mobilization and rebellion, sparked particularly extensive debate. As in the sessions on the colonial period, the papers and discussion underscored a degree of dissatisfac­tion with conventional interpretations of Andean re­bellions and called for more direct exploration of the phenomenon of Andean consciousness-both in its own right and in terms of its material underpinnings.

One of the most helpful aspects of the discussion was the participation by historians of Mexico. Their comments were particularly useful in illuminating the causes and character of Andean rebellions by isolat­ing patterns of commonality and contrast with those found in Mexico.

Overall, the panels contributed to the development of an approach to the interpretation of Andean re­bellions that would underscore the interplay of mate­rial and ideological factors over the long term, ana· Iyze the impact of Andean political strategies and initiatives in the evolution of political life in Peru and Bolivia, and allow for the possibility that Andeans have sometimes held types of consciousness not al­ways associated with "peasants." At the same time, it remains clear that much work needs to be done on the details of political alliance and friction "on the ground" during political mobilization. Further work and discussion on patterns of Andean self-defense and resistance during more apparently quiescent pe­riods are also in order.

The following papers were presented:

Session 1 From resistance to insurrection: The late colonial crisis Steve J. Stern, UniveJ"Sity of Wisconsin , "The Age of

Andean Insurrection, 1742-1782: A Reappraisal" Magnus Morner, University of Gothenburg, and Ef­

rain J. Trelles, University of Texas, "Testing a General Scheme for the Analysis of Rural Rebel­lions in the Tupac Amaru Uprisings"

Sessions 2 Leadership and clientele, factionalism and organi­zation

Scarlett O'Phelan Godoy, University of Cologne, "EI perfil de las rebeliones andinas del siglo XVIII" ("Characteristics of Andean rebellions in the 18th century")

Leon G. Campbell, University of California, River­side, "Organization and Factionalism in the Gre<lt Rebellion, 1780-1783"

49

Sessions 3 Consciousness and identity during the age of An­dean insurrection

Manuel Burga, Catholic University of Peru, "La crisis de la identidad andina: mito, ritual y memoria en los Andes centrales en eI siglo XVII" ("The crisis of Andean identity: Myth, ritual, and memory in the Central Ande~ in the 17th cen­tury")

Frank Salomon, University of Wisconsin, "EI culto a los ancestros y la resistencia al estado en un pue-010 arequipeno, 1748(?)-1754" ("The ancestor cult and resistance to the state in a village of the Arequipa region, 1748(?)-1754")

jan Szem'mski, Catholic University of Peru, "Kill the Spaniard"

Aloerto Flores Galindo, Catholic University of Peru, "Buscando un Inca" ("Looking for an Inca")

Session 4 Rebellion and nation-state formation Michael j. Gonzales, University of Utah, "Neo­

colonialism and Indian Unrest in Southern Peru, 1867-1898"

Tristan Platt, Bolivian National Archive (ANB), Sucre, "Andean Reoellion and the Rise of the Lib­eral Party: 1825-1900"

Session 5 Coalitions, consciousness, and national crisis: A case study

Heradio Bonilla, Institute of Peruvian Studies (Lima), "EI campesinado indigena y eI Peru en eI contexto de la guerra con Chile" ("The indigenous peasantry and Peru in the context of the war with Chile")

Florencia E. Mallon, University of Wisconsin, "Nationalist and Anti-State Coalitions in the War of the Pacific: Junin and Cajamarca, 1879-1900"

Session 6 Cultural idioms and social consciousness in mod­ern Andean revolts

Rosalind C. Gow, Madison, "Land and Revolution: Indian Resistance to Latifundio Expansion and Modernization in the Southern Andes, 1880-1968"

jorge Dandier and juan Torrico, Center for the Study of Economic and Social Reality (CERES), La Paz, "EI Congreso Nacional Indidgna de 1945 en Bolivia y la reoeli()n de Ayopaya (1947)" ("The Na­tional I ndigenous Congress of 1945 in Bolivia and the 1947 rebellion of Ayopaya")

Xavier Alb6. Center for Research on and Promotion of the Peasantry (CIPCA), La Paz, "De MNRistas a Kataristas a Katari" ("From MNRistas to Kataristas to Katari")

Victor Hugo C{trdenas (La Paz), "Katarin AI­chhinakapax Qhip Nayr Untasisaw Sarnaqanasa­Notas soore eI pensamiento katarista" ("We, the descendents of Tupaq Katari, must travel looking carefully both behind and ahead-Notes on Katarista thought")

In addition to the authors of papers mentioned above, conference participants included the follow-109: John Coats worth , University of Chicago; A.

50

Eugene Havens, University of Wisconsin; Friedrich Katz, University of Chicago; Brooke Larson, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Karen Spald­ing, University of Delaware; and Enrique Tandeter, Center for the Study of State and Society (CEDES), Buenos Aires. Silvia Rivera (La Paz), although unable to attend the conference, made important contribu­tions to its intellectual formulation and agenda. Stu­dents and observers from the area also participated in the discussion. Joan Dassin served as staff.

New approaches to Latin American labor history

A conference, sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies and held in New York, October 13-15, 1983, brought together a variety of specialists to assess the rapidly expanding literature on labor history within the field of Latin American studies. Participants-historians or historically­minded social scientists-included Latin Americanists from both the United States and Latin America, as well as students of the African and United States labor movements. These scholars provided diverse and comparative perspectives on a number of con­ceptual and methodological issues raised by the new literature on Latin American labor history. Some participants also focused on case materials to illustrate one or another of the new approaches to the subject.

Much of the discussion centered around two con­ceptual issues: (1) the utility of casting Latin Ameri­can labor studies within the global approach com­monly referred to as world-systems analysis; and (2) the usefulness of applying the methods and concerns of the "new social (and labor) history" to Latin Ameri­can subject matter. The focus was not primarily on the widely-recognized strengths of these two major post-World War II developments in world historiog­raphy; rather, the discussion revolved around their weaknesses and potential abuses in Latin American labor studies. Some participants argued that world­systems analysis has failed to link its overarching con­cerns with the dynamics of the world economy to the development and mobilization of national and inter­national labor movements. This failing is crucial, they argued, because it is around the issue of labor mobili­zation that the larger issues of economic expansion and contraction may ultimately pivot. Other partici­pants argued that the new social history, with its em­phasis on working class cultural understandings and consciousness, holds out the promise of unlocking these issues of labor mobilization. Yet the new labor history often ignores the larger structural constraints

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

on workers' understandings and actions and its methods rely on data available only in highly-de­veloped societies. Much of the discussion thus cen­tered on the problem of fusing these two com­plementary approaches in what is still a relatively undeveloped world region and field of historical study.

Participants concluded that the ongoing definition of the appropriate subject matter for Latin American labor studies will undoubtedly inform much future work in the field. Thus, as yet unresolved questions about the advantages of broadening the traditional institutional and political concerns of labor history to include cultural and social themes, for example, or the fruitfulness of focusing in the first instance on workers in export production, transport, and export processing, rather than on workers in manufacturing industry, in tracing the early ideological and institu­tional formation of various Latin American labor movements, are likely to be high on the research agenda for specialists in Latin American labor history.

The conference, organized by Charles Bergquist, a historian at Duke University, included the following sessions, participants, and presentations:

Session 1 Trends and problems in world labor historiog­raphy: Their implications for Latin American labor studies

Papers by Melvin Dubofsky and Charles Bergquist.

Session 2 The current state of Latin American labor studies: A survey and critical evaluation

Papers by Paul Drake, Juan Carlos Torre, and Michael Hall (written with Paulo Sergio Pinheiro). Hobart Spalding was the commentator.

Session 3 New methods, subjects, and concepts in the study of Latin American labor history

Papers by Barbara Weinstein, Hector Lucena, Fran­cisco Ignacio Taibo, and Steve Stein. Judith Evans was the commentator.

Session 4 Comparative perspectives on Latin American his­tory

Papers by William Freund and June Nash.

SEPTEMBER 1984

The participants were:

Duke University University of Illinois

Charles W. Bergquist Paul W. Drake Melvin Dubofsky State University of New York,

Binghamton New York City Judith Evans

William M. Freund Michael M. Hall Hector Lucena June Nash

University of Johannesburg State University of Campinas University of Carabobo City College of the City

Hobart A. Spalding University of New York

Brooklyn College of the City

Steve Stein Francisco Ignacio Taibo Juan Carlos Torre

University of New York University of Miami Mexico City Instituto Torcuato Di Tella

(Buenos Aires) Barbara Weinstein State University of New York,

Stony Brook

It is expected that a selection of the papers will be edited for publication.

Francis X. Sutton Receives AAS Distinguished Service Award

Francis X. Sutton, formerly deputy vice-president of the Ford Foundation, was for many years the principal officer at the Foundation responsible for the grants that supported the Council's international program. His many friends at the Council were pleased to learn that on March 22, 1984, at the annual meetings of the Association for Asian Studies, his "grace of style and generosity of spirit" were recognized in the presentation to him of the AAS Distinguished Service Award. The citation noted in part that "university centers, the foreign area committees of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council, and this Association are all strong today because of the confidence and counsel you and your colleagues have in­vested in them."

Mr. Sutton's address to the Council's Area Assembly on October 29, 1982, published in the December 1982 issue of Items, was entitled "Rationality, Development, and Schol­arship."

51

Fellowships and Grants Awarded in 1984

CONTENTS 52 DISSERTATION FELLOWSHIPS IN EMPLOY­

MENT AND TRAINING 52 INTERNATIONAL DOCTORAL RESEARCH

FELLOWSHIPS Africa, China, japan, Korea, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Western Europe

55 GRANTS FOR INTERNATIONAL POST­DOCTORAL RESEARCH Africa, China, Eastern Europe, japan, Korea, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Indochina Studies

THESE PAGES list the names, affiliations, and topics of the individuals who were awarded fellowships or grants by Council committees in the most recent annual competi­tions. The grant programs sponsored by the Council and the grant and fellowship programs for research in the social sciences and the humanities sponsored by the Coun­cil jointly with the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) are both reported here.

The program for Research in Employment and Training was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. This pro­gram has been discontinued, and no new awards have been made since December 1983. The international programs are supported by grants from the Ford Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Additional funding for the China and the Latin American and Caribbean programs is provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and for the Japan postdoctoral program by the Japan-United States Friendship Commission. The Indochina Studies Program is supported by grants from the Ford Founda­tion, the Henry Luce Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Unless it is specifically noted that a program is adminis­tered by the ACLS, the programs listed are administered by the Council.

In the administration of its fellowship and grant pro­grams, the Council does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, creed, disability, marital status, national origin, or sex.

The programs change somewhat every year, and in­terested scholars should write to the Council for a copy of the current brochure.

DISSERTATION FELLOWSHIPS IN EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

The Committee on Dissertation Fellowships in Employ­ment and Training-Rashi Fein, Paul S. Goodman, Frank Stafford, Paula E. Stephan, Linda Waite-recommended,

52

and the Council awarded, the following dissertation fellow­ships since June 1983. Robert W. Pearson, Sophie Golonka, and Lisa Seiden served as staff for this pr_ogr~m.

JOSEPH C. AGUANNO, Ph.D. candidate in psychology, New York University, for research on the validity of aptitude tests

PAUL T. BARTONE, Ph.D. candidate in behavioral sciences, University of Chicago, for research on the relationship of stress to health among Chicago Transit Authority bus drivers

PAUL-D. BOLDIN, Ph.D. candidate in economics, University of Wisconsin, for a longitudinal analysis of wage and employment differences between black and white young adult males

DEBORA L. CLOUGH, Ph.D. candidate in psychology, Kansas State University, for an evaluation of the appraisal of the physically disabled in the workplace .

1'.RICA L. liROSHEN, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Harvard University, for research on how differences among the characteristics of employers affect the variation in wages among employees

FREADA KLEIN, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Brandeis U ni­versity, for research on the incidence and severity of sexual harassment in service employment and the re­lationship of sexual harassment to productivity

ROSLYN A. MICKELSON, Ph.D. candidate in education, Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, for research on the effects of race, gender, and class on the attitudes and behavior of youth toward academic achievement

CAROL D. MORGAN, Ph.D. candidate in psychology, Univer­sity of Houston, for an exploration of the processes through which performance feedback and goal setting affect performance

EILEEN TRZCINSKI, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Univer­sity of Michigan, for research on whether married women use labor force participation as income insurance against the risk of divorce

INTERNATIONAL DOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

AFRICA

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Joint Committee on African Studies-Allen F. Isaac­inan (chair), Jane I. Guyer, Bennetta W. Jules-Rosette, Fassil G. Kiros, Thandika Mkandawire, V. Y. Mudimbe, Peter Anyang' Nyong'o, Harold Scheub, and Michael J. Watts-at its meeting on March 22-24, 1984. It had been assisted by the Screening Committee-Thomas J. Biersteker, T. Dunbar Moodie, Christopher Davis-Roberts, Christopher D. Roy, and H. Leroy Vail. Martha A. Gephart and Lily Heom served as staff for this program.

GLENN M. ADLER, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Co­lumbia University, for research in South Africa on worker organization under authoritarian industrializa­tion: black trade unions in the South African automobile industry

JAMES M. DELEHANTY, Ph.D. candidate in geography, Uni-

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

versity of Minnesota, for research in Niger on the mi­gration of Hausa cultivators to new agricultural villages on the dry margins of central Niger: a study in political economy and human ecology

JONATHON P. GLASSMAN, Ph.D. candidate in history, Uni­versity of Wisconsin, for research in France, Tanzania, and the United Kingdom on resistance to German con­quest among the Swahili of the Tanzanian coast

JOSEPH A. OPALA, Ph.D. candidate in African languages and cultures, School of Oriental and African Studies. University of London, for research in Sierra Leone on costume and cosmology: a study of the symbolic significance of the hu-ronko war shirts of Limba chiefs

F. JEFFRESS RAMSAY, jR., Ph.D. candidate in history, Bos­ton University, for research in Botswana and the United Kingdom on local governing institutions in Botswana under colonialism, 1900-1950

PAMELA G. SCHMOLL, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for research in France and Ni~er on the logic of medical pluralism: a study of healmg among the Hausa of Niger

CHINA

The Grants Selection Committee of the joint Committee on Chinese Studies (administered by the American Council of Learned Societies)-jack L. Dull (chair), Nicholas R. Lardy, Susan Naquin, Susan Shirk, Wei-ming Tu, Lyman P. Van Slyke,j. L. Watson, and Pauline Yu-voted during the year to award fellowships to the following individuals. jason H. Parker and Helen Goldsmith served as staff for this program.

EDWARD L. DAVIS, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for research inJapan on the worlds of Hung Mai: a study of demonic possession, exorcism. and popular religion in Sung China

VAl.ERIE HANSEN, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Pennsylvania. for research in japan on deities and Song society

ANGELA Y-Y. SHENG, Ph.D. candidate in Oriental studies. University of Pennsylvania, for research in Copenhagen. Heidelberg, and Paris on the art, technology, and social significance of Chinese textiles in the lower Yangtze re­gion in the 13th century

JAPAN

Under the program sponsored by the joint Committee on japanese Studies, the Subcommittee on Grants for Research-Gary R. Saxonhouse (chair), Gary D. Allinson, Carol Gluck. William Kelly, jeffrey P. Mass, j. Thomas Rimer, Yoshiaki Shimizu, and Patricia G. Steinhoff-at its meeting on February 16, 1984, voted to make awards to the following individuals. Theodore C. Bestor and Robin Kremen served as staff for this program.

JOANNE R. BERNARDl, Ph.D. candidate in East Asian lan­guages and cultures, Columbia University, for research in japan on the screenplays of Yoda Yoshikata and his collaboration with Mizoguchi Kenji

LONNY E. CARl.ILE, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for research injapan on big business and the politics of production in japan, 194~1955

SEPTEMBER 1984

WILLlAM E. DEAL, Ph.D. candidate in religion, Harvard University, for research in japan on the Lot1L~ Sutra and japanese receptivity to Buddhist symbols

SUSAN L. GRISWOl.D, Ph.D. candidate in Far Eastern lan­guages and civilizations. University of Chicago, for re­search in japan on styles of parody in 18th and 19th century popular fiction

WILLIAM W. HAV£R, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for research in japan on the philosophical cosmopolitanism of Nishida Kitaro, Miki Kiyoshi, and Kuki Shuzo

CAROLYN M. HAYNES. Ph.D. candidate in Asian studies, Cornell University, for research in japan on the nature of parody in kyogen

VIRGINIA S. HELM, Ph.D. candidate in Asian studies, Cor­nell University. for research in japan on the develop­ment of comic consciousness in medieval japanese nar­ratives

VICTORIA E. K~:L1.y-SUZUKI, Ed.D. candidate in education. Harvard University, for research in japan on peer cul­ture and interactions among japanese children

LAUREN j. KOTLOFF, Ph.D. candidate in human develop­ment and family studies, Cornell University, for research in japan on the socialization of interpersonal norms in elementary school classrooms

FRANCES N. MCCALL, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Columbia University, for research in japan on the poli­tics of liberalizing japan's financial system

KOREA

The joint Committee on Korean Studies-Michael C. Kalton, Han-Kyo Kim, Hagen Koo, Peter H. Lee, and S. Robert Ramsey-voted at its meeting on March 8-9, 1984, to award fellowships to the following individuals. Theo­dore C. Bestor and Robin Kremen served as staff for this program.

MARGARET R. BERNEN, Ph.D. candidate in East Asian lan­guages and civilizations. Harvard University, for re­search in Korea on esoteric Buddhism

MILAN G. HE.JTMANEK, Ph.D. candidate in history and East Asian languages, Harvard University, for research in Korea on private academies and the rural elite in Yi dynasty Korea

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

The following fellowships were awarded by the Interna­tional Doctoral Research Fellowship Selection Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean-john H. Coatsworth (chair), Elizabethj. Garrels, Shane]. Hunt, Grant D.jones, and Christopher Mitchell-at its meeting on March 2. 1984. The Selection Committee was assisted by the Screening Committee-Bruce Bagley, Gilbert M. joseph, Norma Klahn, Douglas H. Graham, and Kay Warren. with special help from Frank Safford. joan Dassin, Diana De G. Brown, and Marla Onestini served as staff for this pro­gram.

ALVARO BARROS-LEMEZ, Ph.D. candidate in Spanish and Portuguese, University of Maryland, for research in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and the

53

United States on the origins, structures, and values of Latin American serial fiction in the 19th and 20th cen­turies

KA Y CANDLER, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Illinois, for research in Peru on the organization of space and the personification of place by Quechua speakers in the southern highlands

JOHN CHASTEEN, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of North Carolina, for research in Brazil and Uruguay on the borderland revolutions of 1893,1897, and 1904 and the creation of political frontiers

DAVID HESS, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for research in Brazil on the relations among leaders of Kardecian spiritualism, the Roman Catholic Church, and mainstream medicine

LUCIA KAISER, Ph.D. candidate in nutrition, University of California, Davis, for research in Mexico on the family­level impact of agricultural developments on household economic strategies, resource allocation, and nutrition

JUAN KOROL, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Argentina on eco­nomic growth and stagnation in the Argentine littoral region, 1840- 1914

SAMUEL MARTiNEZ-MAZA, Ph.D. candidate in anthropol­ogy, The Johns Hopkins University, for research in the Dominican Republic and Haiti on ethnographic and historical aspects of agricultural labor migrations to the Dominican Republic, 1900-1983

CHARLOTTE REVILLA, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Columbia University, for research in Brazil on the links between industrial water pollution and the socioeco­nomic transformation of small-scale fishing communities in the state of Bahia

JEFFREY RUBIN, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for research in Mexico on con­straints on a leftist regional political movement in Juchi­tan, Oaxaca

KATHRYN SIKKINK, Ph.D. candidate in political science and Latin American studies, Columbia University, for re­search in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile on the influence of the Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL) on development policy in Argentina and Brazil. 1951-1962

HELAINE SILVERMAN, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Texas, for archeological research in Peru on the social, economic, and political organization of early Nasca culture at Cahuachi

NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East-Peter von Sivers (chair), Leonard Binder, Eric Davis, Abdellah Hammoudi, Michael C. Hudson, Suad Joseph, Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot, Alan R. Richards, and John Waterbury-at its meeting on February 24-26, 1984. P. Nikiforos Diamandouros and Eileen Elliott served as staff for this program.

STEFANIA PANDOLFO, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Princeton University, for research in Morocco on the social history of production in an oasis

JAMES A. REILLY, Ph.D. candidate in history, Georgetown University, for research in Syria on landownership in a semicolonial economy: the case of Damascus. 1860-1908

SHARON S. RUSSELL, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research in

54

Jordan and Kuwait on the effects of international mi­gration on a labor-sending and a labor-receiving country

DENISE A. SPELLBERG, Ph .D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for research in Europe, Egypt, and Turkey on 'A'isha: the origin and evolution of a historical per­sonality in Muslim society

THEODORE R. SWEDEN BURG, Ph.D. candidate in anthropol­ogy, University of Texas, for research in the West Bank on popular memory in a peasant society: the 1936-39 rebellion in Palestine (West Bank)

SOUTH ASIA

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Joint Committee on South Asia-Myron Weiner (chair), Pranab K. Bardhan, Bernard S. Cohn, Richard M. Eaton, Barbara S. Miller, Harold S. Powers, Norman T. Uphoff, and Susan S. Wadley-at its meeting on March 2, 1984. David L. Szanton and Carolle Ruppert served as staff for this program.

MARY K. FAIR, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Stanford University, for research in Nepal on the culture and history of Ghurka soldiers

PATRICIA A. GOSSMAN, Ph.D. candidate in South Asian languages and civilizations, University of Chicago, for research in India on religious institutions and peasant organizations in East Bengal, 1873-1937

NIRMALIE S. TENNEKOON, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for research in Sri Lanka on the dynamics of collective identity building in the Mahavali agricultural settlement program

SOUTHEAST ASIA

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Joint Committee on Southeast Asia-John R. W. Smail (chair), David O. Dapice, Shelly Errington, Mary R. Hollnsteiner, Charles F. Keyes, Lim Teck Ghee, David Marr, and Ruth T. McVey-at its meeting on March 30, 1984. David L. Szanton and Carolle Ruppert served as staff for this program.

CHARLES V. BARBER, Ph.D. candidate in jurisprudence and social policy, University of California, Berkeley, for re­search in Indonesia on forest protection and land re­habilitation in Java

JAY BERNSTEIN, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Univer­sity of California, Berkeley, for research in Indonesia on folk medical reasoning and the storage of technical medical knowledge in .West Kalimantan

KATHERINE A. BOWIE, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for research in Thailand on local and international trade in the Chiang Mai valley during the 19th century

JAMES P. BROSIUS, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Uni­versity of Michigan, for research in Malaysia on the socioecology of Penan hunter-gatherers in Sarawak

RICHARD F. DONER, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for research in In­donesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand on the problems of economic cooperation in the production of an ASEAN automobile

JANICE P. HOSTETLER, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for research in Indonesia on recre­ational dancing and sociocultural change in Jakarta

VOl.UME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

MARK McLEOD, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in France on Cath­olicism and intercommunal violence in northern and central Vietnam, 1820-1885

MARGARET j. WIENER, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for research in Indonesia on myth, ritual, and event in the cultural analysis of king­ship in Bali

Wl::STERN EUROPl::

The following dissertation research fellowships were awarded by the Joint Committee on Western Europe­Philippe C. Schmitter (chair), Arnaldo Bagnasco, Peter A. Gourevitch, Victoria de Grazia, Gudmund Hernes, Peter J. Katzenstein, Charles S. Maier, Victor Perez-Diaz, Rayna Rapp, Charles F. Sabel, Fritz W. Scharpf, and L.J. Sharpe-at its meeting on March 16, 1984. They were assisted by the Screening Committee-Herrick E. Chap­man,judith Chubb, G~sta Esping-Andersen, jan E. Golds­tein, Robert W. Hanning, David Rosand, Katherine M. Verdery, and Steven B. Webb. P. Nikiforos Diamandouros and Noel Pick served as staff for this program.

CELIA S. ApPLEGATE, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for research in West Germany on political culture and military power in the Palatinate, 1918-1956

Ll::ORA AUSLANDER, Ph.D. candidate in history, Brown Uni-versity, for research in France on the "culture of produc­tion" in the Parisian furniture trades, 1780-1850

LAUREN A. BENTON, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, The Johns Hopkins University, for research in Spain on "self-employed" workers and casual labor in two Madrid industries

RICHARD G. BIERNACKI, JR., Ph.D. candidate in sociology, University of California, Berkeley, for research in the United Kingdom on the culture of German and English factory organization

SARAH R. COHEN, Ph.D. candidate in the history of art, Yale University, for research in France on the interrelation­ship between the fite gaiante and early 18th century dance

SCOTT B. COOK, Ph.D. candidate in history, Rutgers Uni­versity, for research in the United Kingdom on the political aspects of an imperial relationship, using Ire­land as an example, 1880-1922

GARY B. HERRIGEL, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research in West Germany on the history of the prosperity, crisis, and adjustment of the West German tool industry, 1945-1983

DAVID G. HORN, Ph.D. candidate in cultural anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Italy on fascism and working-class culture in Milan, 1929-1936

WILLIAM F. KELLEHER, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Michigan. for research in Northern Ire­land on work, worldview, and class

RANDAl.L W. KINDLrY, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Duke University, for research in Austria on the role of shop stewards in balancing the interests of the union and its members in a concertative incomes policy

CATHl::RINEj. KUDLlCK, Ph.D. candidate in history, Univer­sity of California, Berkeley, for research in France on disease, public health, and urban social relations in Paris, 1830-1850

Sl::PTEMBl::R 1984

SURA LEVINE, Ph.D. candidate in art history, University of Chicago, for research in Belgium and other European countries on the Belgian Workers Party and avant-garde art, 1884- 1905

KRISTIE I. MACRAKIS, Ph.D. candidate in the history of science, Harvard University, for research in West Ger­many on the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, 1911-1960

jOSEP A. RODRIGUEZ, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Yale University, for research in Spain on the politics of medicine

LYNNE M. WOZNIAK, Ph.D. candidate in government, Cor­nell University, for research in Spain on labor and social pacts, 1977-1983

RICHARD J. YNTEMA, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for research in the Netherlands on the eco­nomics and politics of gild regulation in Amsterdam and Rotterdam from 1600 to 1800

JONATHAN N. ZIEGLER, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Harvard University, for research in West Germany on technology policy in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1969-1982

GRANTS FOR INTERNATIONAL POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH

AFRICA

The following postdoctoral research grants were awarded by the Joint Committee on African Studies­Allen F. Isaacman (chair), Jane I. Guyer, Bennetta W. jules-Rosette, Fasil G. Kiros, Thandika Mkandawire, V. Y. Mudimbe, Peter Anyang' Nyong'o, Harold Scheub, and Michael j. Watts-at its meeting on March 22-24, 1984. Martha A. Gephart and Lily Heom served as staff for this program.

SARA S. BERRY, associate professor of economics and his­tory, Boston University, for research in the United States on the uses of agrarian surplus in Africa

FREDl::RICK COOPER, professor of history, University of Michigan, for research in France on urban workers and urban masses in francophone Africa

DENNIS D. CORDELl., associate professor of history, South­ern Methodist University, for research in Canada, the Central African Empire, and France on history, society, and low fertility in North Central Africa

DUSTIN C. COW l::1.L , associate professor of history, Univer­sity of Wisconsin, for research in the United States on HassanTya Ghazal poetry

Sn.vEN FEIERMAN·, professor of history, University of Wis­consin, for research in Tanzania, the United States, and West Germany on government regulation of healers in Tanzania: the formation of intellectuals, 1880-1935

SUSAN N. G. GEIGER, assistant professor of women's studies, University of Minnesota. for research in Tanzania on women's mobilization in African nationalist movements : Bibi Titi Mohamed and the Tanganyika African Na­tional Union, 1954-1965

ANITA j. GLAZl::, associate professor of art history, Univer­sity of Illinois, for research in Ivory Coast on a compara­tive study of Sen ufo art

PAUL E. LOVEJOY, professor of history, York University, for research in Nigeria and the United Kingdom on slavery in the Sokoto Caliphate

55

RANDALL L. POUWELS, lecturer in African history, La Trobe University, for research in the United Kingdom and Zanzibar on the oral historiography of the Zanzibar Shirazi

DAVID W. ROBINSON, jR., professor of history, Michigan State University, for research in France, Mauritania, and Senegal on French colonialism and Islamic authority in Senegal

LUISE S. WHITE, lecturer in African history, Rice Univer­sity, for research in Tanzania on returned Haya female migrants .

EDWIN N. WIl,MSEN, professor of African studies, Boston University, for research in Botswana and the United States on the relationship between colonial history and the contemporary status of San in southern Africa

CHINA

The Grants Selection Committee of the joint Committee on Chinese Studies (administered by the American Council of Learned Societies)-jack L. Dull (chair), Nicholas R. Lardy, Susan Naquin, Susan Shirk, Wei-ming Tu, Lyman P. Van Slyke, j. L. Watson, and Pauline Yii-awarded during the year grants to the following individuals in the categories listed. jason H. Parker and Helen Goldsmith served as staff for this program.

Research in Chinese Studies

RICHARD BAUM, professor of political science, University of California, Los Angeles, for research on the political economy of Chinese bureaucracy

PATRICK HANAN, professor of Chinese literature, Harvard University, for research on the libertine novel in China

JOANNA F. HANDLIN, associate in research (informal ap­pointment), john K. Fairbank Center, Harvard Univer­sity, for research on philanthropy and public works as keys to Ming-Ch'ing definitions of community

CHAD HANSEN, associate professor of philosophy, Univer­sity of Vermont, for research on a theory of classical Chinese philosophy

ROBERT M. HARTWELL, professor of history, University of Pennsylvania, for research on foreign trade, monetary policy, and Chinese "mercantilism"

DAVID NOEL KEIGHTLEY, professor of history, University of California, Berkeley, for research on the world of the royal diviner: temperament and mentality in late Shang China

JAMES REARDON-ANDERSON, librarian, C. V. Starr Library, Columbia University, for research on the introduction and development of chemistry in China, 1860-1949

CLAUDIA Ross, assistant professor of linguistics, Purdue University, for research on the verb phrase in Mandarin Chinese

C. MARTIN WILBUR, professor emeritus of East Asian lan­guages and cultures, Columbia University, for research on China's national revolution and Soviet advisors, 1922-1927

BRANTLY WOMACK, assistant professor of political science, Northern Illinois University, for research on democratic institutionalization in post-Mao China: an analysis of the people's congress system

BELL YUNG, assistant professor of music, University of Pittsburgh, for research on the music of China

56

Mellon Prog;ram in Chinese Studies for Research and Advanced Study

KATHRYN BI:.RNHARDT, instructor in history, Wittenberg University, for research on the local politics of water control in the jiangnan during the late Ming and Qing periods

LOREN L. BRANDT, jR., assistant professor of economics, St. Olaf College, for research on the interaction of internal anfl external factors in Chinese agriculture: the case of Central and Eastern China, 1890s-1930s

CYNTHIA j. BROKAW, instructor in history, Bowdoin Col­lege, for research on elite authority in the late Ming social order

TIMOTHY j. BROOK, Ph.D. candidate in Chinese history, Harvard University, for research on monasteries and the local socioeconomy of Ming- China

PAMELA K. CROSSLEY, visiting fellow in history, Yale U ni­versity, for research on Hongtaiji and the transformation of the Qing polity, 1627-1643

ROBERT P. HYMES, assistant professor of East Asian lan­guages and cultures, Columbia University, for research on religious Taoism in a local setting: Hua-kai Mountain in the Sung dynasty

WILLIAM C. KIRBY, assistant professor of history, Wash­ington University', for research on the international de­velopment of China, 1928-1958

DONALD M. NONINI, assistant professor of anthropology, New School for Social Research, for research on the making of the Malaysian Chinese working class, 1900-1980

EDWARD L. SHAUGHNESSY, Evanston, Illinois, for research on the military history of the Western Zhou dynasty

NANCY S. STEINHARDT, lecturer in art history, University of Pennsylvania, for research on city planning in imperial China

RICHARD L. VON GLAHN, New Haven, ConnectIcut, 'for research on lineage, family structure, and property in' the settlement of China's southern frontier, 750-1300

ARTHUR N. WALDRON, visiting lecturer in history, Princeton University, for research on the Great Wall of China

WEN-HsING YEH, Newark, California, for research on higher education in Republican China

Mellon Prog;ram in Chinese Studiesfor Summer Language Training at the Inter-University Prog;ramfor Chinese Language Studies (Taipei)

These awards were made by the joint Committee on Chinese Studies.

SUZANNE W. BARNETT, associate professor of history, Uni­versity of Puget Sound

NORIKO KAMACHI, professor of history, University of Michigan, Dearborn

BRIAN McKNIGHT, professor of history, University of Hawaii

PAUL S. Ropp, associate professor of history, Memphis State University

MARK SELDEN, professor of sociology and history, State University of New York, Binghamton

JOHN E. WILLS, jR., associate professor of history, Univer­sity of Southern California

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

EASTERN EUROPE

The joint Committee on Eastern Europe (administered by the American Council of Learned Societies)-Harold B. Segel (chair), Daniel Chirot, jane L. Curry, Edward A. Hewett, Keith A. Hitchins, Ken jowitt, William G. Lockwood, and Piotr S. Wandycz-at its meeting on November 21, 1983 made awards to the following individ­uals. jason H. Parker and Helen Goldsmith served as staff for this program.

FRANK A. DUBINSKAS, Exxon Fellow, Program in Science, Technology, and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research on urban professionals and the social construction of "tradition" in Slavonia

CHARLES FRAZEE, professor of history, California State University, Fullerton, for a history of the Catholic Greeks of the Aegean

EUGENE A. HAMMEL, professor of anthropology and de­mography, University of California, Berkeley, for re­search on fertility decline in the Croatian military border region

PAUL W. KNOLL, associate professor of history, University of Southern California, for research on Cracovian con­ciliar thought in the 15th century and the development of Polish political theory

A. JAMES McADAMS, assistant professor of government, Hamilton College, for research on East Germany and detente, 1982-1984

THOMAS L. SAKMYSTER, professor of history, University of Cincinnati, for research on Admiral Miklos Horthy and Hungary, 1918-1945

DAVID STARK, assistant professor of sociology, Duke Uni­versity, for research on coalition politics at the work­place: new class configurations in socialist societies

OTTO U Le, professor of political science, State University of New York, Binghamton, for research on dissent through nondissent: misbehavior in Czechoslovakia in the 1980s

JAPAN

Under the program sponsored by the joint Committee on japanese Studies, the Subcommittee on Grants for Research-Gary R. Saxonhouse (chair), Gary D. Allinson, Carol Gluck, William Kelly, jeffery P. Mass, j. Thomas Rimer, Yoshiaki Shimizu, and Patricia G. Steinhoff-at its meeting on February 16, 1984, voted to make awards to the following individuals. Theodore C. Bestor and Robin Kremen served as staff for this program.

JONATHAN W. BEST, associate professor of art history, Wesleyan University, for research in japan and Korea on Buddhism, art, and magic in 7th century japan

RICHARD j. BOWRING, associate professor of japanese lit­erature, Princeton University, for research in japan and the United States on the Tales of Ise in japanese culture

BRETT DEBARY, associate professor of japanese literature, Cornell University, for research in japan on the work of the poet Yosano Akiko (1878-1942)

EDWARD B. FOWLER, assistant professor of japanese lit­erature, Duke University, for research in japan on shishosetsu, an autobiographical prose genre, in modern japanese narrative literature

JOHN K. GILLESPIE, assistant professor of japanese and comparative literature, St. John's University, for re-

SEPTEMBER 1984

search in japan on the impact of modern Western theatre on three contemporary japanese playwrights: Betsuyaku Minoru, Shimizu Kunio, and Tsuka Kohei

THOMAS W. HARE, assistant professor of japanese lit­erature, Stanford University, for research in japan and the United States on Kamo no Chomei (1153?- 1216) and his search for Buddhist salvation

TAMARA K. HAREVEN, professor of history, Clark Univer­sity, for research in japan and the United States on work and family among silk weavers in Nishijin, Kyoto

THOMAS R. H. HAVENS, professor of history, Connecticut College, for research in japan on the impact of the Vietnam war on japanese politics, society, and culture

CHRISTINE G. KANDA, visiting professor of art history, Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, for research in japan and the United States on Masuda Takashi (1848-1938), an in­dustrialist and major art collector and connoisseur

EARL H. KINMONTH, associate professor of history, U niver­sity of California, Davis, for research in japan and the United States on the social and intellectual origins of fascism among the prewar japanese middle classes.

ELLIS S. KRAUSS, professor of political science, Western Washington University, for research in japan and the United States on the politics of public broadcasting and the impact of television news on japanese politics

HERMAN OOMS, associate professor of history, University of Illinois, Chicago Circle, for research in japan on the creation of political subjects through the dissemination of ideology to commoners in mid-Tokugawa japan, 1690--1740

MACHIKO aSAWA, research associate in economics, Colum­bia University, for research in japan and the United States on lifetime employment and the seniority wage system in japan

DAVID W. PLATH, professor of anthropology and Asian studies, University of Illinois, for research in japan on the life histories of artisan divers

DAVID POLLACK, associate professor of japanese, University of Rochester, for research in japan and the United States 'on narrative in japanese art and literature

THOMAS C. SMITH, professor of history, University of California, Berkeley, for research in the United States on japanese industrial workers, 1890--1920

HONG W. TAN, associate economist, Rand Corporation, for research in the United States on company pension policies and their implications for japan's aging labor force

KOREA

The joint Committee on Korean Studies-Michael C. Kalton, Han-Kyo Kim, Hagen Koo, Peter H. Lee, and S. Robert Ramsey-voted at its meeting on March 8-9, 1984, to award grants to the following individuals. Theodore C. Bestor and Robin Kremen served as staff for this program.

DONALD L. BAKER, visiting assistant professor of history, Illinois State University, for research in the United States on the confrontation with Roman Catholicism in Neo­Confucian Korea

CHUNG Moo CHOI, researcher in folklore, Indiana Univer­sity, for research in Korea on the politicization and commoditization of shamanic healing

LATIN AMERICAN AND THE CARIBBEAN

The joint Committee on Latin American Studies-jorge Balan (chair), Charles W. Bergquist. Boris Fausto, Manuel

57

Antonio Garret6n, Saul Sosnowski, Stanley J. Stein, Rose­mary Thorp, Arturo Warman, and Kate Young-at its meeting on March 29-April 1, 1984, awarded grants to the following individuals. Joan Dassin, Diana De G. Brown, and Maria Onestini served as staff for this program.

CARLOS ALTAMIRANO, editorial director, Folios Ediciones, Buenos Aires, for research in Argentina on the forma­tion and development of the new left in Argentina, 1960-1973

GEORGE REID ANDREWS, associate professor of history, University of Pittsburgh, for research in Brazil on urban race relations in Sao Paulo, 1888- 1937

JosE MARiA ARICc), researcher, Latin American Institute for Transnational Studies (ILET), Buenos Aires, for re­search in Argentina on the role of Jose Carlos Mariategui in the development of Marxism in Latin America

ARNOLD D. BAUER, professor of history, University of California, Davis, for research in the United States on the rural history of Spanish America, 1500-198~

MARIA-VICTORIA BENEVIDES, researcher, Center for the Study of Contemporary Culture (CEDEC), Sao Paulo, for research in Brazil on the political history of the Brazilian Labor Party, 1945- 1965

CHARLES CARNEGIE, visiting assistant professor, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, for re­search in Jamaica on the ethnohistory of land use and tenure in rural Jamaica

JANET CHERNELA, researcher, National Research Institute for the Amazon, Manaus, for research in Brazil and the United States on improvised songs of the eastern Tuka­noan speakers of the northwest Amazon

RAFAEL ECHEVERRiA, executive director, Center for the Study of Women and Children (CEANIM), Santiago, and consultant, Regional Employment Program. for Latin America and the Caribbean (PREALC), Santiago, for research in Chile on the concept of labor and its implications for Latin American development

ADOLFO MALVAGNI GILLY, professor, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), for research in Mexico on cardenismo and the impact of social reform and transformation on the Mexican national consciousness in the 1930s

MARiA TERESA GRAMUGLlO, independent researcher, Buenos Aires, for research in Argentina on the sociocultural role of the magazine Sur in the 1930s

ER\V1N GRIESHABER, assistant professor of history, Mankato State University, for research in Bolivia on Indian population history during the 19th century

ANDRES GUERRERO, professor, Latin American Faculty ?f Social Sciences (FLACSO), Quito, for research In

Ecuador on local power and ethnic domination in the 19th and 20th centuries

PAULO J. KRISCHKE, assistant professor of politics, Ponti~­cal Catholic University of Sao Paulo, for research In Brazil on Christian base - communities and the trans­formation of Brazilian society

ASUNCIc)N LAVRIN, associate professor of history, Howard University, for research in Argentina, Chile, the United States, and Uruguay on Latin American feminism and social change, 1880- 1940

JOSt: NUN, professor of political science, University of To­ronto, for research in Argentina on the diverse and evolving meanings of peronismo in the everyday discourse of the working classes in greater Buenos Aires

SCARLETT O'PHELAN GODOY, visisting fellow, Institute of Latin American and Iberian History, University of

58

Cologne, for research in Argentin.a, Bolivia, ~nd Pt;ru ~n the middle sectors and the dynamICS of colomal socIety In Peru in the second half of the 18th century

JUAN ANTONIO ODDONE, professor of history, Autonomol:'s Metropolitan University of Mexico, for research In Argentina, the United Kingdom, and Urugu.ay on the economic and social aspects of the commerCIal expan­sion of the port of Montevideo in the 19th century

M. FELIPE PORTOCARRERO, .professor of sociology, Univer­sity of San Marco~, Lima, for rese~rch in ~eru on the social and economIc aspects of pubhc sector Investment, 1978-1983

JOHAN REINHARD, independent researcher, Santiago, for research in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru on mountain worship and ancient ceremonial centers in the Andes

MONICA SCHULER, associate professor of history, Wayne State University, for research in Guyana on the social history of post-Emanicipation liberated African inden­tured immigrants in British Guiana, 1841-1940

ENRIQUE SEMO, researcher in economics, National Auto!1-omous University of Mexic~ (UNAM), for .research ~n the United States on economIcs and the MeXIcan state In transition, 1780-1980

STEVE J. STERN, associate professor of history, University of Wisconsin, for research in Mexico on woman, gender relations, and crime in Mexican society, 1720-1850

PAUL SULLIVAN, intern, Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York, for research in Mexico on the intensification of agricultural production in the northern lowlands of the Yucatan peninsula

EDUARDO VALENZUELA, researcher, SUR Professionals, Santiago, for research in Chile on th~ development ~f Chilean student movements and the hIstory of the ChI­lean Student Federation, 1906-1973

RAMIRO VElASCO, national deputy, Bolivia, and researcher, Center for the Study of Econo~ic and S?cial Re~l!ty (CERES), La Pa~, for research In Arge.n~lna, Bohvla: Brazil, and Peru on the power of the BollVlan Workers Central (COB) in the Bolivian state

NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The following postdoctoral research grants were awarded by the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East-Peter von Sivers (chair), Leonard Binder, Eric Davis, Abdellah Hammoudi, Michael C. Hudson, Suad Joseph, Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot, Alan R. Richards, and John Waterbury-at its meeting on February 24-26, 1984. P. Nikiforos Diamandouros and Eileen Elliott served as staff for this program.

CORNELL H. FLEISCHER, assistant professor of Islamic his­tory, Washington University, for research on the rise of bureaucracy and dynastic law in the 16th century Otto­man Empire

NANCY E. GALLAGHER, assistant professor of history, Uni­versity of California, Santa Barbara, for research on war and disease in Egypt in the 1940s

YVONNE Y. HADDAD, associate professor of Islamic studies, Hartford Seminary, for research on contemporary academic contributions to the "Islamization" of the social sCIences

DONALD C. HOLSINGER, assistant professor of history, George Mason University, for research on the evolution of urban guilds in 19th century Tunis

VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3

ST1:.PHEN R. HUMPHREYS, associate professor of history, University of Wisconsin, for research on Tabari and the art of narrative in early Arabic historiography

FARHAD KAZEMI, associate professor of politics, New York University, for research on peasantry and rebellion in the Middle East

WILFRID j. ROLL.MA~, adjunct lecturer of history, Univer­sity of Michigan, for research on Islam, the 'ulama, and the "New Order" in 19th century Morocco

BARABARA F. STOWASSER, associate professor of Arabic, Georgetown University, for research on the QI·thodox Islamic establishment and the status of women in Islam

MARIA E. S BTEI.:-.IY, assistant professor of Middle East and Islamic studies, University of Toronto, for research on the Timurid patronage state and the economics of cul­ture

MARY C. WILSON, independent researcher, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for research on King Abdullah and the emergence of Jordan as a national state

SOUTH ASIA

The joint Committee on South Asia-Myron Weiner (chair), Pranab K. Bardhan, Bernard S. Cohn, Richard M. Eaton, Barbara S. Miller, Harold S. Powers, Norman T. Uphoff, and Susan S. Wadley-awarded grants to the fol­lowing individuals at its meeting on March 2, 1984. David L. Szanton and Carolie Ruppert served as staff for this program.

ARJUN API'ADURAI, associate professor of anthropology, Oniversity of Pennsylvania, for research on peasant cal­culation in Western India

DII.!p K. BASU, associate professor of history, niversityof California, Santa Cruz, for research on the life history of a Calcutta gangster

SeoTf C. DELANCEY, assistant professor of linguistics, Uni­versity of Oregon, for research on the syntax of Newari in Nepal

LOUIS •. A. CORT, specialist in East Asian ceramics, Freer Gallery of Art (Washington. D.C.), for research in Heidelberg on the Orissa Research Project Archi\'e

SANDRIA B. FREITAG, research associate, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California. Berkeley, for research in London on crime in British India

KATHRYN G. HANSEN, associate professor of Asian studies, University of British Columbia, for research on the Nautanki popular threatre of North India

ROl':ALD B. INDEN, associate professor of South Asian his­tory, University of Chica~o, for research in London on a critical history of HindUIsm and kingship

DAVID M. KNIPE, professor of SOllth Asian studies, Uni­versity of Wisconsin, for research on Vedic and Hindu aspects of traditional Indian health and medicine

DENNIS B. MCGILVRAY, associate professor of anthropol­ogy, University of Colorado. for research on matrilineal society in Sri Lanka

AWADH K. NARAIN , professor of history. University of Wis­consin. for research on the history and coinage of the Sakas of Central and South Asia

SOUTHEAST ASIA

The joint Committee on Southeast Asia-John R. W. Smail (chair), David O. Dapice, Shelly Errington, Mary R.

SEPTEMBER 1984

Hollnsteiner, Charles F. Keyes, Lim Teck Ghee, David Marr, and Ruth T. McVey-awarded grants to the follow­ing individuals at its meeting on March 30, 1984. David L. Szanton and Carolle Ruppert served as staff for this pro­gram.

DANIEL F. DOEPPERS, professor of geography, University of Wisconsin, for research in the Philippines on housing and family budgets in Manila

DAVID S. GIBBONS, professorial fellow, Centre for Policy Research, University of Science, Malaysia, for research on rural development, poverty reduction, and political process in peninsular Malaysia

ROBERT W. HEFNER, assistant professor of anthropology, Boston University, for research on agricultural involu­tion in highland java

JOEl. C. KUIPERS, visiting assistant professor of anthropol­ogy, Wesleyan University, for research in West Sumba and Amsterdam on the formation of narrative in an I ndonesian community

H Y V AN LUONG, ·visiting assistant professor of anthropol­ogy, Hamilton College, for research in France and Viet­nam on the structural reproduction and transformation of Vietnamese kinship under socialism

j Ul.IANE S. SCHOBER, teaching assistant in anthropology, University of Illinois, for research on religious reform in Burma

NANCY J. SMITH-HEFNER, lecturer in anthropology, Boston niversity, for research on the acquisition of com­

municative competence by children in Java NICOLA B. TANNENBAUM, research associate in anthropol­

ogy, University of Iowa, for research in Thailand on Shan calendrics, cosmology, and the use of time

ROBERT O. TILMAN, professor of political science, North Carolina State UniverSIty, for research on perceptions of external threats held by policy makers in Indonesia . Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand

T OBY A. VOLKMAN, Documentary Educational Resources {Watertown, Massachusetts}, AND CHARLES ZERNER, as­sistant professor of design, Massachusetts College of Art, for research in Indonesia on architecture, innovation, and the increase in ritual performances in the contem­porary tourist era of Toraja

INDOCHINA STUDIES

The Sub-Committee on Indochina Studies of the joint Committee on Southeast Asia-Charles F. Keyes (chair), Amy Catlin, Carol Compton, May Ebihara, David Elliott, john Hartmann, Gerald Hickey, Hue-Tam Ho Tai, David Marr, Bounlieng Phommasouvanh, james C. Scott, john Whitmore, and Alexander Woodside-at its meeting on March 28-30, 1984 awarded grants for the following indi­vidual and collaborative projects. Margaret L. Koch and David L. Szanton served as staff for this program.

YEN NGOC Do, Nguoi Viet News Inc. (Westminstel', California); KHOAN LA-PHAM, Santa Ana nified School District (Santa Ana, California); LE DINH DIEU, Paris; PHAN Huy DAT, Santa Ana Unified School District (Santa Ana, California); AND T RAN V AN NGO, Agence Havas (Neuilly-sur-Seine), for research on the press in South Vietnam, 1954-1 975

NHON THE DOA N [Vo PHEIl': ], Los Angeles, California, for research 011 the lite ratu re of South Vietnam, 1954-1975

59

NANCY D. DONNELLY, JANE N. P. MALLINSON, CORINNE COLLINS-YAGER, AND HANG Ly, Department of An­thropology, University of Washington, for research on the roles of women in Hmong society, with particular attention to the production and decoration of textiles and healing through herbal medicines

GARY YIA LEE, St. John's Park, Australia, AND TIMOTHY DUNNIGAN, Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota, for research on Hmong political history in Laos, 1935-1975

NHA TRANG Moss [CONG HUYEN TON Nu NHA TRANG], Institute of Asian Research, University of British Co­lumbia, for research on women in South Vietnamese literature, 1954-1975

FRANK PROSCHAN, Folklore Center, University of Texas; KHAMMEUNG MONOKOUNE, Santa Ana, California; AND RENE SEU, Glendale, Arizona, for research on Kmhmu verbal art

MoLY SAM, Department of Continuing Education, Univer­sity of Texas, for research on the applied technique of Khmer court dance, in comparison with Thai and Indian forms

YANG SAM, Philadelphia, Penn!iylvania, for research on

changes in the structure and role of Buddhism in Cam­bodian politics, 1965-present

HUYNH SANH THONG, Southeast Asia Studies Program, Yale University, for research on socialist reeducation in Vietnam since 1975

Y AN(; DAO, Southeast Asian Refugee Studies Program, University of Minnesota, for research on the political history of Laos, 1935-1975

Published and unpublished materials generated and collected by these grantees will be placed in an archive and made available both to members of the Indochinese com­munities and to research scholars.

Council's new telephone number

All members of the Council's staff may now be reached by dialing (212) 661-0280. The cable address remains SOCSCIENCE NEWYORK.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 605 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10158

Incorporated in tlte State of I/linotf, December 27, 1924, for tlte purpose of advancing reuault in the ,H/cia/ scirnre.r

Directors, 1984-85: STEPIH,N E. FIENIIERG, Carnegie-Mellon University; HOWARD GARDNER, Veterans Administration Medical Center (Boston); CHARLES 0, JONES, University of Virginia; ROIIERT W. KATES, Clark University; GARDNER LINDZEY, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences; EI.EANOR E. MACCOII)" Stanford University; HUGH T. PATRICK, Columbia University; JOSEPH A. PECHMAN, The Brookings Institution (Washington, D.C.); KENNETH PREWITT, Social Science Research Council; SYDEL F. SILVERMAN, The Graduate Center, City University of New York; RODOLFO STAVl:.NHA(;EN, EI Colegio de Mexico; Sn:I'HEN M. STIGl.ER, University of Chicago; LOUISE A. TILLY, New School for Social Research; SIDNH VERIIA, Harvard University; IMMANUEL WAl.U:RSTElN, State University of Ne\\ York, Binghamton; WILLIAM JULIUS WIL\ON, University of Chicago.

Officl'I:f and Staff' KENNETH PREWITT, President; DAVID L. SILl.S, Executive Anoriate; RONAI.D j. Pt:Lt:CK, COIl/rolll'1'; THt:l>DORt: C. BESTOR, JOAN DASSIN, P. NIKIFOROS DIAMANDOUROS, MARTHA A. GEPHART, ROIIERT W. PEARSON, Pt.TER B. READ, RICHARD C. ROCKWELL, SOPHIE SA, LONNIt. R. SHERROD, DAVID L. SZANTON.

60 VOLUME 38, NUMBERS 2/3