SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 23 . NUMBER 1 . MARCH 1969 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL PROBLEMS*

THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, like the physical or biological sci­ences, are intellectual subjects, directed primarily toward understanding, rather than action. It would of course be a curious kind of "understanding" that had no implications for action, and this is perhaps especially true for the social sciences. Nevertheless, there is a difference between enlarging one's understanding of human be­havior and society on the one hand and trying to solve a social problem on the other. The social sciences are distinct from social problem solving, but each can con­tribute to the other.

During the last few years there has been a significant change in popular attitudes and expectations in the United States regarding social change and social prob­lems. A renewed determination to ameliorate certain long-standing, as well as recently developed, ills of the society has arisen along with a sense of power and con­fidence in its ability to do so.

In looking for ways in which to implement this desire for self-control, for directed rather than accidental im­provement, a good many leaders of society have begun to tum, increasingly expectant, to the social sciences. Some have asked what the social sciences can contribute to the venture. Others have assumed that these sciences have a great deal to contribute to a better society and that they need only to be force-fed (the recommend­ed diet varies from prescriber to prescriber) in order to grow faster and to make their contribution larger.

• This article is excerpted from a longer one by the President of the Council, scheduled for publication in the February 1969 issue of Social Science Information. It is based on the John Randolph and Dora Haynes Lectures delivered at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in February 1968. The subject was discussed by the Council's board of directors at its meeting in March 1968, and has the continuing attention of its Committee on Problems and Policy.

by Henry W. Riecken

The social sciences do have a contribution to make to social practice but not so large a contribution as they will make if helped to develop properly. At this point in history, the magnitude of major social problems exceeds the capacity of social scientists to solve them.

Such expectations have been entertained before. In the latter part of the nineteenth century and the first decade or so of the twentieth, social scientists of the day offered advice to the progressive political and social movements of the times. As David Truman has pointed out, these political scientists and sociologists operated not only from a weak position in the political structure, but also with an almost total lack of theoretical sophisti­cation, quite nonrigorous methods, and few facts about the systems on which they were advising. 1 They were in­tellectually premature and too ready to claim relevance. Their efforts fell far short of expectations, both their own and expectations of those who, from outside the disciplines, had called upon them.

Social scientists had another try during the early years of the New Deal when economists especially, but sociolo­gists and political scientists too, were invited into gov­ernment and other institutions to develop programs, plans, and social devices for dealing with the Great De­pression. The novel thinking of agricultural econo­mists and the resultant development of institutions for what was then known as "farm relief" were considerably more successful than the efforts of the social reformers of the early 1900's had been.

One reason for the relatively greater success of the applied economics of the New Deal was that there had

1 David B. Truman, "The Social Sciences and Public Policy: Maturity Brings Problems of Relevance and Training," Science, 160:508-512, May 8,1968.

1

been developing in the United States a considerable sophistication in economics as a discipline. together with a good empirical base of data that had been accumulated over the prior decades. In comparison with today's data base. that of the 1930's was poor and small; but it was a vast improvement over the virtual data vacuum of 1900. Another reason for the relative success was probably the degree of desperation that gripped the country and led to a willingness to try the somewhat radical measures that were proposed by economists; partly because people were willing to try the measures, they were successful.

Still another opportunity for the social sciences came during World War II when psychologists and anthro­pologists especially made significant contributions to the prosecution of the war and the government of occu­pied territories.

Social scientists are currently being offered a fourth opportunity to display what they have to offer toward the solution of what is now a fairly well-standardized. if incomplete. list of problems: poverty. racial segrega­tion and discrimination. urban decay and the strangula­tion of transportation. human and mechanical pollution of the environment. and a perceived increase in the in­cidence of crimes of violence. Will social scientists succeed better this time in living up to the expectations that face them? What can and should be done to make possible greater success?

There are several purely scientific difficulties in apply­ing social science successfully to the solution of social problems. Limitations of space prevent their adequate discussion here.2 Their importance is such that they must at least be mentioned. however. and they require persistent scientific effort in order to improve the ca­pacity of the social science disciplines to cope with social problems. There are three major scientific issues: so­called "Hawthorne effects" or changes in behavior which result from the fact that individuals are subjects in an experimental study; the inadequacies of existing data about social problems and individual behavior and the defects of indirect data; and finally the manipulabili­ty of social factors that are variables in social scientific analyses of problems. These are difficult scientific prob­lems but not impossible of solution. Furthermore. much headway can be made in applying social science without fully solving them.

Over the decades in the social sciences the tendency has been to develop internal concerns. to define their own problems and not to accept. as their subject matter. the social problems of the contemporary and surround­ing society. This tendency is attributable to forces in-

2 These issues are taken up in the longer article in Social Science In­formation cited above.

2

trinsic to the disciplines themselves. especially to con­ceptual redefinition of problemli and to methodological or technical developments. A social scientist who under­takes to work on a practical problem. not as a wise man or a clever consultant. but as a scientist. quickly finds that the popular. or common-sense statement of the problem is either incomplete or misleading; that "the" problem is really many problems. only some of which fall within the disciplinary or scientific scope; and that there are severe inadequacies in the methodological or technical equipment that he has for dealing with "the" practical problem. Sometimes the scientist examines the "real world" because some part of it has solved a prob­lem and the scientist wants to know how the solution works. After he understands how it works he can some­times improve upon the solution. but the basic move­ment of his thought is always away from the practical and toward abstract knowledge.

The social scientist gets driven back to more funda­mental questions that bear less and less resemblance to the practical problem until they appear to be irrelevant; furthermore. some of the more fundamental questions raised in this way take on a life of their own and become genuinely dissociated from practical problems. They form. instead, the central conceptual or methodological core of the science as such. Thus, over a period of time, a social science can grow more abstract and become in­creasingly concerned with questions that confront it as an intellectual enterprise per set and that require solu­tions whether or not they bear upon the social problems of the day.

If these intrinsic intellectual forces were the only ones at work. a discipline would gradually lose all rele­vance. However. exogenous factors also have some in­fluence. For example, some people become social scien­tists who have a genuine interest in solving social problems and retain it despite the professionalizing ex­periences of graduate study. Market forces are also ef­fective, especially grants from both private foundations and government agencies to support applied social re­search. The opportunity for a career in an applied field of social science is a market factor of importance. The very existence of professional economic consulting firms as private, nonacademic enterprises holds out the possi­bility of a career outside the academic world, and may tempt a young man who finds practical affairs more challenging than the intellectual world. The develop­ment of clinical psychology was greatly aided by the demands of the Veterans Administration directly after World War II for diagnostic and therapeutic help at its hospitals and clinics.

Another factor of importance is prestige. The social sciences are primarily academic enterprises. more so than

VOLUME 23, NUMBER I

either the biological or physical sciences and the aca­demic portion of the discipline is not only overwhelm­ingly larger than other sectors but also overpoweringly more prestigious. The physical and the biological sci­ences, on the other hand, have substantial nonacademic sectors that are intellectually and scientifically influen­tial, as well as of great and evident practical importance.

The prestige which most social scientists attach to academic social science mayor may not be justified but it is a fact. The low status of applied work is probably undeserved, but it too is a fact, and one that may dis­courage some first-rate scholars who are status conscious from entering early upon a career in applied social sci­ence. The origins of this low status lie partly in the earlier relative failures of social scientists to deal ade­quately and successfully with social problems.

Even where applied social research has developed and has attracted competent people, it still has been applied research rather than what is called "development" (in the Research and Development sense) or "engineering." Most applied social research has been concentrated on the analysis of situations explaining or accounting for a given state of affairs; or the measurement of outcomes -and the degree of success of some action in reaching a stated objective. There has been less attention to pre­paring new means for taking action or recommending how a user should proceed in order to achieve success.

The production of recommendations for action goes beyond research and indeed beyond science, into what is properly termed "development" rather than "research," or "engineering" rather than "science." The distinction is more than verbal-it is a whole complex: a state of mind, institutional auspices, cross-disciplinary relations, communication with nonscientists, and employment of nonscientific resources and nonscientific skills.

"Development" or "engineering" calls primarily for an inventive and constructive attitude, more than an analytic and differentiating one. The scientist is usually trying to unscramble a given complex situation to see how its components work. An engineer is usually trying to put together a device or a process to achieve a given purpose. The scientific process is analytic; the engineer­ing process is synthetic. The scientist's creativity is con­ceptual, in producing imaginative new principles or con­nections between concepts. An engineer's creativity is in tangible inventions of things or processes that have a causative or productive relationship to a desired end.

Except in very limited and spotty areas, social devel­opment or social engineering does not exist. Examples of social engineering can be found in economics in the development of fiscal and monetary policies, and in psychology in new forms of psychotherapy (especially behavior therapy), programmed instruction, human re-

MARCH 1969

lations training, the training of managers, and the social organization of production units in firms.

ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES

The development of an applied social science or a social engineering may proceed faster through profes­sional schools (especially business and medicine) than through disciplinary departments in universities.

The academically based research and teaching unit in the social sciences is affected by forces that hinder this sort of development. Some are organizational, some sci­entific; some derive from the institutional arrangements for the conduct of research in the social sciences. Most research is done in academic settings by part-time or short-term workers, Le., by professors and graduate stu­dents. The former have teaching and administrative re­sponsibilities that take up part of their time, the latter have a primary short-term interest in completing a dissertation and getting on in the world. The former . work part time on a research problem, the latter leave it for other places or other problems after a relatively short time. Thus, many social science research problems are "thesis-sized" because they are selected for that rea­son. This tendency is abetted by the current system of project grants which tends to emphasize short-term in­vestigation of discrete problems rather than long-term, exploratory and persistent pursuit of a problem, a phe­nomenon, a method. The absence of a tradition of long­term research careers on a full-time basis, the inflexi­bility of space that makes it hard to expand and contract the size of a long-term project as such changes become necessary, the varying requirements for skilled labor in interviewing and data processing (currently eased by computer applications), all contribute to sporadic in­terest, easy discouragement, and lack of persistence.

On the other hand, the real basic advances in social science seem more likely to occur in settings-such as disciplinary departments-that are relatively free of the pressures to devise immediate solutions, to work with client systems, and to attend to the range of extra­scientific considerations that are involved in solving so­cial problems. A convincing argument can be made that the most pressing needs of social science are methodo­logical and that the greatest opportunities for strength­ening the social sciences lie in improving methods of research and developing more powerful theories. Indeed, a considerable amount of the advance in social science that has taken place in the last few decades has come about through basic research of this sort, conducted in disciplinary departments.

Thus conventional disciplinary departments and in­stitutes that are genuinely embedded in universities can

be counted on to provide the social scientific under­pinning for solving social problems, but should not be counted on for the actual problem-oriented work itself_ The latter task should be the responsibility of institu­tions that have less formidable intellectual responsibili­ties, and are free of the primary educational obligation_ Furthermore, applied social research institutions ought to have some closer firsthand contact with social prob­lems and the agencies that can take effective action on the problems_

REQUIREMENTS FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Where then should the responsibility for social sci­ence contributions to the solution of social problems be located? The phrasing of the question suggests part of the answer for, in the first place, a social problem rarel y bears a one-to-one correspondence to social sci­ence, and almost never bears such a correspondence to any single social science discipline_ All social problems are interdisciplinary in the sense that they require, for adequate solution, the efforts of more than one kind of scientist and usually of more than just scientists or engineers. Hence, the first requirement of an applied social research agency is that its professional personnel be drawn from a variety of disciplines (both within and outside the social sciences).

A second requirement, much harder to achieve, is that the assembled members of these disciplines be able to work together productively and effectively. This re­quirement demands first-rate scholars, not only curious about the problem at hand but also inquisitive about each other's fields and capable of learning from each other. Willingness to listen and curiosity are more im­portant than anything else, since transfer of training among social scientists is entirely possible, and it may even help in the solution of, say, a psychological prob­lem if an anthropologist without any particular train­ing in psychology gets to thinking about it.

A third requirement is that the team have full op­portunity to perform its functions of engineering and development. This requires certain kinds of facilities: buildings and computers-especially adequate "soft­ware" to go with the computing machinery and all the programming and other technical help that can be pro­vided. One of the most useful techniques in social en­gineering is the simulation of the social processes that are believed to underlie the social problem. In many cases these simulations will have to substitute for ex­perimentation because of the size or other intractable features of the problem.

A fourth requirement is long-term funding com-

4

mensurate with the size of the social problem. It is a commonplace of American politics that social problems must be solved quickly. We are abjured to waste no more time in eliminating segregation, discrimination, pov­erty, crime, and unemployment. But while sense of cri­sis may impel movement, a lot of it is waste motion. We are too impetuous and not persistent enough in trying to solve social problems. Problems need sustained study, trials of many different kinds of solution rather than one-shot panaceas arranged overnight by agencies that are funded on an annual basis and publicly criticized for lack of instant success.

PROBLEMS IN UTILIZATION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

One of the most interesting points about social sci­ence contributions to the solution of social problems is that the process of introducing the changes necessary to solve the problem is in itself a problem in social sci­ence. Before introducing changes into a quasi-stationary situation, the decision maker must consider a number of factors that affect the chances of success. First, he must consider the acceptability of his proposals to all the peo­ple involved in the situation; and the harm, damage, or deprivation that some of them may experience. Next, he must assess the effectiveness of the methods he expects to use to attract the attention and arouse willingness to explore, and the capacity he has to teach people new ways of behaving. Finally, he must try to adjust the incentive and inhibitory factors in the situation so as to stabilize the new equilibrium and maintain the change he aims to bring about. Almost all of these problems exist in one form or another in utilization of the products of biological and physical sciences, too. But these sciences have not only an engineering or developmental branch that puts their ideas into usable form, but also a market­ing mechanism-a set of activities and relationships that handles these problems or is so constituted that it can afford to ignore some of them.

On the whole, the marketing mechanisms for social inventions and devices do not parallel those for physical and biological technology. There are at least three reasons for this. In the first place, until recently, there have been few social inventions or devices that could not be marketed or disseminated either through existing political mechanisms in the public sector, or through publication, or through the establishment of a professional group such as clinical psychologists. It may be that marketing mechanisms will spring up in re­sponse to the appearance of new items to be marketed. For example, there are profit-making companies which now seem to be interested in developing and selling, as

VOLUME 28, NUMBER I

well as installing, new curricular materials and instruc­tional procedures in the schools; and industrial firms have contracted to operate schemes for the alleviation of poverty-usually through retraining of the unskilled or underskilled. This trend has yet to be evaluated, but it could alter profoundly the nature of the process of so­cial change. Secondly, there is difficulty in protecting property rights in intangible social technology. If the product is an idea, an attitude, a routine, it is hard to copyright and generally impossible to patent. The ab­sence of protection of exclusive rights makes the pros­pect of investing in a marketing organization less at­tractive to an entrepreneur. Thirdly. much of the tech­nological product of the social sciences has to do with the public rather than with the private sector of the economy. and is valuable for its distributive effect on the total society rather than for its enhancement of the quality of life of one individual at a time. Add to this the fact that a good many social inventions cannot be as­signed a unit value. and one can see that the marketing mechanism must be the state in some form, rather than private enterprise.

PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IN THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

Some questions of public policy are raised by research and development activities in the social sciences. For example. what should be the public policy toward de­liberate social experimentation, especially toward con­cealed experiments. in which the subjects are not aware that they are involved in an experiment? There are scientific reasons for concealment but the public policy problem is whether the probable gains from conducting such an experiment outweigh the ethical undesirability of acting in a less than open fashion. There is something repugnant about concealment of purpose, even when the motives for it are disinterested and no one is harmed. There is something upsetting about discover­ing that what one thought was a real and natural flow of events was instead a carefully contrived sequence of moves deliberately planned to accomplish a precon­ceived purpose.

The benefits to the general public welfare have to be balanced against these possible disadvantages. If experi­mental purpose must be concealed in order to obtain valid knowledge that will lead to improved social poli­cies at a relatively low cost, not only in money but in mistakes and discomforts visited upon citizens, then the undesirable features of a concealed experiment may be outweighed by its advantages. The judgment cannot be made a priori for all cases; it must depend in each instance on the estimated costs and the anticipated bene-

MAIlCH 1969

fits. Perhaps the more significant public policy question is: Who shall make the judgment?

On a more general level. one may raise questions in terms of a conflict between two values: the advancement of knowledge, and the personal integrity and con­venience of the individual citizen. Nowhere does this conflict become more explicit than in questions con­cerning invasion of individual privacy. especially in re­gard to the collection of detailed data about individuals and their maintenance in files that are presumably to be used for research purposes.

The issues here turn around safeguards as to how the data will be used. and in how much detail the data will be kept. Briefly summarized. what has been proposed is that certain kinds of data which are now regularly col­lected by various agencies (central and local authorities and perhaps private agencies. too) but kept in separate files and published only in aggregated forms be made available for research purposes on a disaggregated basis. More specifically it is proposed that data about individ­uals such as employment, income. savings. or expendi­tures be collected and stored in such a way that it would be possible to match the information from these sepa­rate series, by individuals. The anonymity of the indi­vidual and the confidentiality of the information would presumably be maintained as they are now. The data system would be used for research purposes, not for administrative ones.

Whether the very existence of a national data system would tempt those with legitimate access to make ille­gitimate use of the data is a much more serious question, going well beyond the data system per se. The question really turns around one's estimate of the likelihood of "big brotherism"-of a controlling government and a controlled society, and of the role the social sciences might play in bringing about such a situation or main­taining it. As our society grows in density of population, in interdependence, in complexity and technological sophistication, the need for rational planning and for the thoughtful and foresighted management of our affairs grows apace. And so does the need for vigilance in the defense of individual liberty, since there is al­ways, as there always has been, the tempting possibility for those in power to "simplify" their problems by wielding their power in ways that constrict freedom and constrain the less powerful.

There is no reason, however, to see the social sciences as more culpable or more threatening than other kinds of science and technological development. The power of the state is increased by the development of sophisti­cated weapons for its police, more efficient communica­tion among them, and by devices that enable eaves­dropping at a distance and through a wall. There are

5

dangers in pharmacological control of behavior. Indi­vidual freedom can be abridged by the architecture of our dwellings and the design of our transportation, as well as by the laws which govern minimum wages, wel­fare payments, and income tax exemptions.

In fact, the social sciences can help to make us aware of threats to our freedom while giving us greater power

to control our own behavior in constructive ways, help­ing us to be more tolerant of diversity, to learn to live together in greater harmony, less violently and more satisfyingly. If we are to reap these benefits, however, we must work at understanding ourselves and our so­ciety, at perfecting a social science that is capable of meeting the challenges of our future.

THE EUROPEAN SEMINAR ON LEARNING AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS, HELD AT SKEPPARHOLMEN,

SWEDEN, JULY 29-AUGUST 23, 1968

As a sequel to two highly successful advanced training conferences held at Stanford University in the summers of 1964 and 1965 under the direction of Lee J. Cron­bach and Richard C. Atkinson, and with the assistance of the Council's Committee on Learning and the Educa­tional Process, a European Seminar on Learning and the Educational Process was held at the Skepparholmen conference center at Saltsjo-Boo, Sweden for 4 weeks in the summer of 1968. Whereas the Stanford conferences had been designed mainly for American educational re­search workers, this Seminar was pian ned primarily for Europeans, in addition to a carefully selected group of Americans. The organization of the Seminar was gen­erally similar to that of the Stanford conferences, par­ticularly the 1965 conference where most of the work was carried on through ad hoc seminars that met for varying lengths of time.

The purpose of the Seminar, as stated in the formal announcement, was "to provide advanced training for experienced research workers interested in problems relevant to education." The program emphasized ex­amination of "developments in psychology and other

• The author. Senior Research Psychologist. Educational Testing Service. was Director of the European Seminar on Learning and the Educational Process. which was sponsored by the UNESCO Institute for Education. Hamburg. in association with the Swedish and British Social Science Research Councils and the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process. The Seminar was financed mainly by funds provided by the UNESCO General Conference. the UNESCO Institute for Education. the Swedish Social Science Research Council. and the Ford Foundation. Preliminary plans for the Seminar were developed by an ad hoc committee: Lee J. Cronbach. Stanford University (chairman); Hellmut Becker. Max·Planck Institute for Educational Research. Ber­lin; John B. Carroll: James Drever. University of Dundee; Eleanor J. Gibson. Cornell University; A. D. de Groot. University of Amsterdam; Torsten Husen. University of Stockholm; Ben Morris. University of Bristol; Gustaf Ogren and T . Neville Postlethwaite. UNESCO Institute for Education. Hamburg; Hugh Philp. UNESCO Division of Com­parative Education; Nils-Eric Svensson. National Board of Education. Stockholm; and David A. Walker. University of Edinburgh.

6

by John B. Carroll-

behavioral sciences that have potential significance for education. and also educational developments and needs that pose questions for the behavioral scientist." Par­ticipants were to be given assistance in the selection of problems for their own research and in planning their projects_ Both methodological and substantive problems of research would be considered. It was also an implicit purpose of the Seminar to bring together educational psychologists and research workers from both sides of the Atlantic, to foster professional relations that would persist and lead to greater international cooperation in educational research.

Although it has been customary for activities spon­sored by UNESCO to be conducted in two or more languages, various factors dictated that the Seminar should be conducted exclusively in English. This plan worked very well; requiring all applicants whose native language was not English to submit evidence of com­petence in English made it possible to select, from many national origins, a group of participants who each had at least acceptable facility in both understanding and speaking English. The only language problem encoun­tered was that native speakers of English tended to talk too rapidly and without consideration of others' slower comprehension and facility in speaking. There is at present some thought in UNESCO circles of planning a French-speaking seminar, to take place in 1970 or 1971, for persons not eligible to apply for the 1968 Seminar because of lack of proficiency in English.

ORGANIZATION OF THE SEMINAR

Planning for the European Seminar was carried on over about two and a half years. Exploration of the possibility of holding an international training seminar was begun by Lee J. Cronbach, then chairman of the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process,

VOLUME 23. NUMBEll 1

shortly before the opening of the 1965 conference at Stanford. The planning committee held its first meeting in Hamburg in August 1966; it was decided to hold a 4-week seminar in the summer of 1968, with John B. Carroll as Director and six instructors, three of whom would be American, and three European. Approxi­mately 10 of the 35 participants were to be American; the remainder were to be selected from as many Euro­pean countries as possible, with the possibility of includ­ing a few participants from non-European countries such as Australia and Canada. Among the suggested examples of topics to be emphasized were: methodology of research, including research design. statistical meth­ods. the construction of tests and other instruments for gathering data. and observational techniques; curricu­lum research. including means of establishing educa­tional goals. and of developing and evaluating particular curricula; teacher behavior. including techniques of measuring such behavior and its effectiveness. and of studying the social psychology of the classroom; cogni­tive development and the adaptation of instruction to it; motivation in school learning; and problems of second-language learning and bilingualism.

During 1966-67 the staff of the Seminar was recruited. and the conference site selected. The staff. in addition to the Director, consisted of Mats Bjorkman, Professor of Psychology. University of Umea; M. Alan Brimer. Head of the Research Unit. Institute of Education, Uni­versity of Bristol; Evan R. Keislar, Professor of Educa­tion, University of California, Los Angeles; Elzo Velema, Director, Centre for Educational Research and Coun­seling, Twente Technological University, Enschede; Michael Wertheimer, Professor of Psychology, Uni­versity of Colorado; and David E. Wiley, Associate Professor of Education and Human Development, Uni­versity of Chicago. Announcements were distributed in­ternationally, and applications were received from ap­proximately 110 Americans and 65 persons from European and other countries. From these applications it was possible to select a group of highly qualified par­ticipants, all of whom held a doctorate or European equivalent. Most were fairly young, about 2 or 3 years beyond their doctoral training, but a few older, more experienced persons were included. In the selection of participants a special effort was made to constitute in­ternational groups on the basis of individual interests in the various topics that had been announced for in­vestigation. The 34 participants and one observer in­cluded 11 Americans and 24 persons from 15 other countries.1

1 The participants were: D. E. Marianne Bauer, Instructor. Psycho. logical Laboratory. University of Stockholm; Ralph F. Berdie. Pro­fessor of Psychology, University of Minnesota: Seymour M. Berger,

MARCH 1969

Discussion and interaction among participants were much facilitated by the fact that nearly all resided at the delightful conference site. located on a large estate and containing ample facilities for all the Seminar acti vi ties.

After a 3-day orientation period during which all the instructors and participants gave brief presentations of their backgrounds and research interests, the Seminar evolved into a number of discussion groups. led either by instructors or participants and focused on particular topics of interest. Although some provision had been made for formal courses to be conducted by instructors. there was little demand for such courses. Some ad hoc seminar groups. however. covered their topics in a more or less systematic way. within time limitations. The li­brary, assembled mainly from the resources of the

Associate Professor of Psychology, Indiana University: John B. Biggs, Educational Research Officer, Monash University: Ann L. Brown, As­sistant Lecturer, University of Sussex: Robert L. Cooper. Research As­sociate, Yeshiva University: Marianne Denis-Prinzhorn , Chef de Travaux, Institut des Sciences de I'tducation, University of Geneva: Hans-Magne Eikeland, Institute for Educational Research . Uni\'ersity of Oslo: Mario Ferencich, Professor of English and Psychology. Uni­versity of Trieste: Carmen , . Finley, Director of Research ancJ n~ta Processing, Sonoma County Schools. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Robert R. Gras, Head, Institute for Research in Higher Education, State University of Utrecht: John K. Hall, Research Officer, National Foundation for Educational Research, London: Diether Hopf, Akademlscher Rat, In­stitute for Education, Free University of Berlin; Leonard M. Horowitz, Associate Professor of Psychology, Stanford University: Karlheinz Ingenkamp, Director. Division of Educational Psychology, Pedagogical Center, Berlin: J~rgen Aage Jensen, Research Associate, Danish Insti­tute for Educational Research. Copenhagen; G. A. M. Kempen, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit, Nijmegen: S. Biland Khan, Assistant Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto: Lennart Levin, Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg; G. J . Mellenbergh, scientific co-worker with A. D. de Groot, University of Amsterdam; Frank B. Murray, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota; Kje" Nowak, Research Consultant, Stockholm School of Economics: Irena Obuchow­ska, Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Poznan; Jacqueline Pelnard-Considl!re, Psychologist, Institut National d'£tude du Travail et d'Orientation Professionnelle, Paris: Gerard J. Pollock, Deputy Director, Scottish Council for Research in Education, Edin­burgh; Michel H. Rousson. Research Associate and Instructor, Institute of Psychology, University of NeucMtel: S. Jay Samuels, Assistant Pro­fessor of Educational Psychology. University of Minnesota; Joan E, Sieber. Assistant Professor. School of Education, Stanford University: Alena !lpatenkov:1, Pedagogical Faculty. Charles University; Comelis F. van der Klauw, Center for Educational Research and Counseling, Twente Technological University: Adrian P. van Mondfrans, Assistant Professor of Education and Psychology, Purdue University; Eric Wallin, Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg: Bernard Weiner, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles; Allen W, Wicker. Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Zolt:1n B:1thory, Assistant Lecturer, National In­stitute of Education, Budapest, attended the Seminar as an observer. Sarah W, Lundsteen, Associate Professor of Education, University of Texas, and T. Neville Postlethwaite, Coordinator, International Project for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. UNESCO In­stitute for Education, were also in attendance for most of the session; the latter served as an assistant administrator of the Seminar,

7

Swedish Psychoeducational Library in Stockholm with the aid of Xerox facilities, provided a good collection of materials for study and was extremely valuable to those participants who did not have such resources at home. Some of the seminars ran for a relatively brief period, while others continued throughout the 4 weeks: new seminar groups were constituted as demand for them arose. Participants were encouraged to give presenta­tions of their own research activities and problems. In­structors gave much individual attention to these prob­lems, either in the formal seminar groups or in private consultations. A number of participants were enabled to analyze or re-analyze research data that they had brought, either by means of an Olivetti Programma 101 desk calculator or at the Computer Center of the Swedish Statistical Bureau in Stockholm, where an IBM 360/67 was available. David Wiley conducted a course on the use of computers.

The day was organized into six periods of one to two hours, and an effort was made to schedule seminar and other activities so as to minimize conflict. Most of the participants concentrated their efforts in only two or three of the some 15 groups that were organized at vari­ous times.

As in the Stanford conferences, the program included visits of outside consultants who gave lectures and seminars on their own research. Most of these con­sultants were Europeans; the few Americans were in Europe for other purposes. The visits ranged from a few hours to three days in duration.2

SEMINAR GROUP ACTIVITIES

Since the main purpose of the Seminar was to give advanced training in educational research, no tangible outcomes in the form of proceedings, reports on original research, or publications were expected. It may be worthwhile, however, to summarize briefly some of the activities of the special groups.

2 The schedule included lectures on various topics in multivariate statistical analysis, by Herman Wold and Anders Christofferson, Uni­versity of Uppsala, and Karl Joreskog, Educational Testing Service; two lectures on testing procedures and educational research in Scotland, A. E. G. Pilliner, University of Edinburgh; "classroom observations," K.-G. Stukat, University of Gothenburg; creativity and intelligence, and research on cognitive styles, Nathan Kogan, Educational Testing Service; "natural language research in education," Ellis Page, Univer­sity of Connecticut; "programmed instruction in special education," K.-G. Ahlstrom, University of Uppsala; "acquisition of cognitive skills in preschool children," Margaret Donaldson, University of Edinburgh; "research in child language acquiSition," Roger Wales, University of Edinburgh; curriculum research and related topiCS, Urban Dahllof, University of Gothenburg; "problems of research in motivation in educational settings," Heinz Heckhausen, Ruhr University at Bochum; "educational research in Sweden," N ils· Eric Svensson and Eskil Bjorklund, National Board of Education, Stockholm.

8

Application of experimental psychology to educa­tion. This group, led by Horowitz, discussed recent re­search on memory and cognition. Murray and Samuels described studies concerned with the role of familiariza­tion in memory and word recognition. Weiner and Horowitz discussed studies of the phenomenon of latent learning and attempted to apply their findings to class­room learning problems. Brown described her studies of discrimination learning by retarded, normal, and superior children and examined their implications for the selection of teaching material and curriculum de­velopment for mildly retarded children. Kempen pre­sented a set-theoretic model for the understanding of sentences. The group exhibited a considerable degree of optimism concerning the possibility of applying ex­perimental findings to educational problems, but agreed on the need for further research and theoretical de­velopments.

Cognitive psychology. A group led by Sieber was con­cerned particularly with the processes by which children make inferences in a probabilistic environment. Among the models considered were a lens model developed by Egon Brunswik, the Bayesian decision model, signal­detection theory, and D. E. Berlyne's conflict-arousal model. Educational applications of these models, which were thought to converge in interesting ways, were dis­cussed. It was concluded that much careful thought and effort would be required to develop useful ways of ap­plying them to educational practice.

Counseling. The role of counseling in education, principally in higher education, was discussed by a group led by Berdie. The group noted that counseling has not yet been highly developed in European higher education, and recommended that relevant research be done and the findings used to indicate needs for counsel­ing and ways in which it might be developed.

Evaluation of instructional programs. Led by Gras, this group first reviewed the utility of Robert M. Gagne's hierarchical analysis of training objectives for the evaluation of curricula and the construction of measurement devices. It concluded that Gagne's system, though provocative, presented a number of problems when put into practice. It next examined problems in choice of the experimental unit in evaluation of instruc­tional programs; Wiley argued forcefully for the use of classroom units, rather than individual pupils. Keislar introduced the group to the "product research cycle" whereby "formative evaluation" (Michael Scriven's term) would be used to improve and modify instructional pro­grams in the course of their development rather than on their completion. Other topics reviewed were: the Na­tional Assessment Program in the United States, the in­fluence of ability grouping on the instructional process

. VOLUME 23, NUMBER 1

in the classroom (here Dahll6f's lectures were especially stimulating), demands of further education on the contents of secondary education, and Carroll's and Wertheimer's work on the evaluation of foreign lan­guage courses.

Language development. In order to reach a common basis of understanding, the group led by Cooper re­viewed recent developments in psycholinguistics, using New Directions in the Study of Language, edited by Eric H. Lenneberg, as a text. During the visits of Donaldson and Wales, the group's attention was di­rected to current research on the relation between semantics and syntax, and to problems in preparing adequate grammars of child language.

Methodology. Under the leadership of Eikeland, this group was concerned primarily with descriptive analysis of non experimental data, drawing causal inferences from nonexperimental data, and developing models for testing hypotheses in nonexperimental research. The work of Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, and A. H. Yee and N. L. Gage on these problems was reviewed, and several members of the group presented practical problems in interpret­ing data drawn from their own research.

Methods of research in comparative education. Ve­lema led this group's discussions of different approaches to comparative education (Abraham Kaplan's four styles: literary, academic, eristic, and symbolic). The group attempted to establish a tentative framework that would integrate micro aspects of educational phenomena­classroom, school, school system-with macro aspects­economic, sociological, philosophical, and educational forces.

Piaget's research. Under the leadership of Murray, this group made a systematic survey of research on the phenomenon of conservation, attempting first to estab­lish satisfactory operational criteria for use of this con­cept, and then examining research literature to see how well these criteria were followed. It was concluded that many problems of semantics and criteria are still unre­solved in this research area. The group was rather pes­simistic about the possibility that findings from research on conservation can be prescriptive for educational practice. The desirability of cross-cultural research was noted, and some exper~ments were planned.

Second-language learning. A number of somewhat unrelated topics in this area were considered by the group led by Cooper. Several experiments in foreign­language teaching were carefully and critically reviewed from both methodological and substantive points of view, e.g., George Scherer and Wertheimer's experiment comparing "traditional" and "audiolingual" techniques, and a study presented by Levin of the factorial composi-

MARCH 1969

tion of various methods of measuring proficiency in use of foreign languages. During the visit of Wales, the group engaged in a lively debate on the compara­tive efficacy of stimulus-response and transformational theories in accounting for native- and second-language learning.

Simulation games. Keislar conducted one seminar session to introduce interested participants to the theory and practice of "simulation games" as learning devices in education, with special reference to Simula­tion Games in Learning, edited by Sarane S. Boocock and E. O. Schild.

Sociopsychological processes. The group organized by Wicker discussed various research topics, such as the relationship of verbal expressions of attitude to overt behavior, social learning theories, the influence of re­lationships between principal and teacher on effective­ness of teaching and student performance, experimenter bias in psychological research, affective correlates of scholastic performance, and the influence of size of organization on involvement of members in its activities.

Study strategies. Upon the initiative of Biggs, this group considered the possibility that a sizable portion of the variance in school achievement at secondary and higher levels is attributable to students' study habits and strategies. An extensive cross-national study was planned.

The teacher and the learning process. Led by Berger, this group attempted to examine such issues as the role of learning theory in education, the need for a theory of instruction, and the conduct of teacher training, especially with regard to how to teach teachers to teach. Since it was recognized that no single theory could en­compass the diverse problems of education, an eclectic view of learning theory was preferred and the need for a convergence of stimulus-response and cognitive theories was seen.

Achievement motivation. With the visit of Heck­hausen in the final week of the Seminar, a group con­cerned with this topic was formed by Weiner, who outlined achievement motivation theory as developed by David McClelland, John Atkinson, and himself. This theory consists of a number of quasi-mathematical laws relating approach and avoidance tendencies to motiva­tion for success and failure and to their probabilities. A number of possible implications for educational prac­tice were indicated, e.g., that students with high moti­vation to succeed (as measured for example by the Thematic Apperception Test) should be given tasks of difficulty such that they could be performed by about 50 percent of a representative group, while students with high motivation to avoid failure should be given relatively easy tasks.

9

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SEMINAR

In terms of immediate impressions the Seminar was a great success, at least in providing the advanced train­ing that was its primary objective. The participants uniformly praised the opportunities for the exchange of ideas and information and regretted that the 4-week period could not have been longer. The course of the Seminar ran smoothly, with difficulties of only the most trivial kind. What seemed remarkable was that a group of such diverse nationalities and kinds of professional training could meet and work together with such una­nimity of purpose and spirit. The problems of educa­tion in the different countries represented looked much more similar than different. If American methods of research in education and the behavioral sciences seemed to loom large in the discussions, it was only in response to genuine curiosity about them and readiness to accept them (actually, some of these methods have European origins).

The ancillary purposes of the Seminar, i.e., to bring about communication and interaction of scholars from different countries, were admirably achieved. Partici­pants reported that they enjoyed the opportunity to get to know each other and learn about each other's interests, competencies, and research styles. Many reo marked that they planned to keep in touch with each other by correspondence or, possibly, future visits; several cross-national comparative studies were planned at the Seminar.

Entries on an end·of·Seminar questionnaire filled by the participants revealed that: (1) most participants rated the Seminar high in "effectiveness in giving gen­eral acquaintance with significant current work, and comprehension of the 'state of the art' in educational psy­chology and research generally"; (2) it was rated gen­erally as having only moderate "effectiveness in giving mastery of the intricacies of at least one topical area"; (3) it tended to be well rated as to "effectiveness in help­ing identify studies worth doing, and developing specific plans"; (4) it was rated rather low in "effectiveness in

[providing] technical criticism of [the participant's] past or planned work"-however, many participants said they were not prepared for such criticism but were made more keenly aware of the necessity of methodological rigor in their studies; (5) it was considered highly effec· tive in motivating participants to do more research, but it did not necessarily motivate them to address them­selves to problems relating directly to education-either because (as educational psychologists) they were already motivated in that way or because (as experimental psy­chologists) they had become more conscious of the prob­lems of applied and developmental research.

The participants appeared to be somewhat disap­pointed with the program of lectures and visits by out· side consultants; they seemed to consider many of the presentations too technical or irrelevant to their own fields of interest. Nevertheless, a majority of the partici­pants singled out two or three of the consultants as especially stimulating; these nominations were made from nearly the whole field of consultants. One can conclude that the program of lectures and consultations was a valuable feature of the Seminar, but that its im­pact was highly selective and depended very much on the individual interests of participants.

The organization of the Seminar stressed informality. Most of the participants, especially those with higher levels of training, were especially appreciative of this quality. A substantial number, however, expressed their preference for a more formal structure, with formal courses conducted by instructors.

Perhaps the European Seminar lacked depth, or may have failed to explore enough problems thoroughly enough. A training program compressed into a 4-week period could hardly be expected to have much more than a catalyzing influence. Nevertheless, as the first international endeavor of its kind, it may have many long-range intangible effects in bringing investigators in different countries into closer contact and in improv­ing the status and quality of educational research. It may even have some long-range effect on the quality of education throughout the world.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS BIOLOGICAL BASES OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Gerald E. McClearn (chairman), Theodosius Dobzhansky, Daniel X. Freedman, David C. Glass, Gardner Lindzey, Stanley Schachter; staff, Norman W. Storer

The committee held a conference on Appraisal of Bio­logical Training for Social Scientists, February 2-6, 1969,

10

at Las Croabas, Puerto Rico. In addition to five members of the committee, 28 social and biological scientists partici­pated, all of whom were acquainted with some aspects of the relations between these two major branches of science. The conference focused on the nature of research problems which will require a combination of social and biological science skills for their solution. and on standards and possi.

VOLUME 211. NUMBEII. 1

ble arrangements for trammg social scientists to exploit these emerging research opportunities. Following the presen­tation of statements by several social scientists on the rele­vance of such topics as genetics, psychopharmacology, and neurobiology to their fields, biological scientists spoke on their experiences in relating their work to the study of social phenomena. A discussion of means of providing training in biological research methods for nonbiologists was fol­lowed by the appointment of five ad hoc task groups to prepare reports on selected aspects of the central topic.

One group took up "points of convergence" between the social and biological sciences and the problems that must be solved in order to ensure the most effective exploration of these convergences. Another investigated the need for gen­eral biological education for social scientists. A third ex­amined ways in which special training might be provided for social scientists with specific research trainng needs. Basic ancillary training in particular areas of biology was examined by the fourth group. The fifth reported on pro­grams of training for interdisciplinary Ph.D.'s. The ma­terials produced by these groups will form the basis of the over-all conference report. A more detailed account of the conference will appear in a future issue of Items.

TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Leon Festinger (chairman), Morton Deutsch, Jarom{r Janousek, Harold H. Kelley, Jaap Koekebakker, John T.

Lanzetta, Serge Moscovici, Stanley Schachter, Henri Tajfel; staff, Stanley Lehmann

The committee has taken another step to assist in the development of social psychology in Latin America. Under its auspices a small group of Latin American social psy­chologists met in Mexico City on January 18-21, 1969 to plan a special session on social psychology for the Congress of the Interamerican Society of Psychology, which is to meet in Montevideo from March 30 to April 6. Messrs. Lanzetta, Moscovici, and Lehmann attended the meeting on behalf of the committee. The Latin American participants were Zoila Bayley of the Central University of Venezuela, Hector M. Cappello, Rogelio Diaz-Guerrero, Sonia Gozman Jezior, and Luis Lara-Tapia, all of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, Jorge Garda-Bouza of the Torcuato Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires, Luis 1. Ramallo of the Latinamerican School of Sociology, Santiago, and Aroldo Rodrigues of the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro.

The special session at the Montevideo Congress is de­signed to bring together scholars engaged in social psy­chological research and to develop plans to advance the discipline in Latin America. A full day's program has been organized. It will include presentation of scientific papers, reports on the status of social psychology in Latin America, discussion of tentative plans for the development of the field, and demonstrations. The session is scheduled for April 2.

PERSONNEL

DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL

The following social scientists have been designated by the seven national organizations associated with the Council to serve as directors of the Council for the three-year term 1969-71:

Elizabeth Colson, University of California, Berkeley, by the American Anthropological Association

James N. Morgan, University of Michigan, by the Ameri­can Economic Association

Samuel P. Hays, University of Pittsburgh, by the Ameri­can Historical Association

David B. Truman, Columbia University, by the American Political Science Associati9n

Gardner Lindzey, University of Texas, by the American Psychological Association

Neil J. Smelser, University of California, Berkeley, by the American Sociological Association

Geoffrey H. Moore, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, by the American Statistical Association.

Their credentials as members are scheduled for acceptance by the board of directors of the Council at its spring meet­ing in New York on March 21-22, 1969.

MARCH 1969

RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS

The Committee on Social Science Personnel-Norton Ginsburg (chairman), Milton C. Cummings, Jr., Lawrence E. Fouraker, John C. McKinney, Murray G. Murphey, Allan H. Smith, and Karl E. Weick-on March 3-4 voted to offer 19 new appointments. Of the 19 awards 6 are predoctoral and 13 postdoctoral:

Emerson M. Babb, Jr., Professor of Agricultural Eco­nomics, Purdue University, postdoctoral fellowship for training at the University of California, Berkeley, in social psychology, organization theory, decision theory, and experimental design

William C. Baldwin, Ph.D. candidate in history, Uni­versity of Michigan, for training in comparative soci­ology and quantitative methods

Jean L. Blumen, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Harvard University, postdoctoral fellowship for training in sta­tistical, mathematical, and computer techniques

Stephen M. Diamond, Ph.D. candidate in history, Har­vard University, for training at the University of Cam­bridge in social anthropology

John Ferejohn, Ph.D. candidate in {lolitical science, Stan­ford University, for training m mathematics and econometrics

11

Shepard Forman, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Indiana University, postdoctoral fellowship for train­ing at the University of Sussex in economic theory and its application to agricultural development

Stephen Gale, Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of Michigan, postdoctoral fellowship for training at the University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University in the application of stochastic programming methods to social planning

Dalmer D. Hoskins, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Michigan, postdoctoral fellowship for training in Geneva in comparative analysis of socio­political aspects of social security programs

Edward F. Kelly, Ph.D. candidate in social psychology, Harvard University, postdoctoral fellowship for train­ing in computational1inguistics

Sheila R. Klatzky, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Uni­versity of Chicago, for training in quantitative method­ology for sociological research

Klaus-Friedrich Koch, Lecturer on Social Anthropology, Harvard University, postdoctoral fellowship for re­search training in comparative law

Kenneth C. Land, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Univer­sity of Texas, postdoctoral fellowship for training at Columbia University in advanced mathematics

Jean C. Lave, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Uni­versity of California, Irvine, postdoctoral fellowship for training in quantitative techniques of analysis in anthropology

Robert W. Marans, Ph.D. candidate in urban and regional planning, University of Michigan, for training in applications of social science techniques and theory in research on the influence of physical environment on behavior

John Modell, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia Uni­versity, postdoctoral fellowship for training at the Uni­versity of Pennsylvania in demography

Harold E. Quinley, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University, postdoctoral fellowship for train­ing at the UniverSIty of California, Berkeley, in socio­logical research on political behavior of professionals

Robert D. Retherford, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, postdoctoral fellowship for training at the Institut National des Etudes Demo­graphiques, Paris, in mathematics and uses of mathe­matical models in historical demography

Joel Sherzer, Lecturer in Linguistic Anthropology, Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, postdoctoral fellowship for training in Panama in ethnography and research on social interaction among the Cuna Indians

Erik Olin Wright, graduate student in history, Balliol College, University of Oxford, for further training in modern history, preliminary to doctoral training in social psychology and sociology

GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Elizabeth Col­son (chairman), L. Gray Cowan, Philip D. Curtin, Walter Deshler, William O. Jones, Igor Kopytoff, Roy Sieber, Robert F. Thompson-at its meeting on February 24-25 awarded 8 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara:

12

David W. Ames, Professor of Anthropology, San Francisco State College, for analysis in London of Hausa song texts and compilation of a dictionary of Hausa musical terms

T. J. Denis Fair, Professor of Geography, Southern Illinois University, for research in the Republic of South Africa on regional development in Southern Africa

Hilda Kuper, Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Swaziland on the process of change in the political system from colonial rule to independence

Arthur A. Moorefield, Associate Professor of Music, Cali­fornia Lutheran College, for research in Ethiopia on the liturgical music of the Ethopian Orthodox Church

Kathleen Rhodes, Professor of Home Economics Educa­tion, Cornell University, for research in Ghana on effectiveness of health instruction in primary schools

J. David Sarir, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Uni­versity 0 Pennsylvania, for research in Senegal on Diola-Fogny language, ethnography, and folklore

Audrey Chapman Smock, Assistant Professor of Govern­ment, Barnard College, for further analysis of survey data on attitudes of Eastern Nigerian villagers

Robert L. Tignor, Associate Professor of History, Prince­ton University, for research in England, Nigeria, and Kenya on social change among selected ethnic groups during the colonial period, 1900-1930

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY AND REPUBLICAN CHINA

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­John M. H. Lindbeck (chairman), Albert Feuerwerker, Walter Galenson, Chalmers Johnson, Frederick W. Mote, George E. Taylor, and Ezra F. Vogel-at its meeting on January 30-31 awarded 12 grants for research:

Riehard J. Coughlin, Professor of Sociology. University of Virginia, for research in the United States on urbani­zation in mainland China

Ralph C. Croizier, Assistant Professor of History, Univer­sity of Rochester, for research in the United States, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong on the nature and development of popular historical consciousness in modern China

Morton H. Fried, Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University, for research in the United States and Taiwan on clan associations in Taiwan and their re­lation to larger aspects of Chinese society

Joyce K. Kallgren, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Davis, for research in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States on social welfare in China

Ying-mao [formerly Yinmawl Kau, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brown University, for research in the United States on bureaucratic development and poli­ties in Communist China

Thomas L. Kennedy, Assistant Professor of History, Manhattanville College, for research in London on military industry in Republican China

Bruce D. Larkin, Assistant Professor of Government, University of California, Santa Cruz, for research in

VOLUME 211, NUMBER 1

Tokyo, Taiwan, and Hong Kong on constraints on Chinese foreign policy since 1949 (renewal of grant made in 1966-67)

Yu-sheng Lin. Acting Assistant Professor of History. Uni­versity of Oregon. for research in the United States on the iconoclasm of the May Fourth era, 1915-27

Harriet C. Mills. Associate Professor of Chinese. Uni­versity of Michigan. for research in the United States on Lu Hsun's relation to Communism in China. 1927-36

Ramon H. Myers, Professor of Economics. University of Miami. for research in the United States on a theory of the Chinese peasant economy: a comparison of the village economy of Taiwan and mainland China, 1900-1937

John E. Schrecker, Assistant Professor of History. Prince­ton University, for research in Taiwan and Japan on nationalism and Chinese foreign policy in the late Ch'ing period and early Republic, and intensive lan­guage training in Japanese

Vincent Y. C. Shih. Professor of Chinese Literature and Philosophy. University of Washington. for research in Taiwan. Hong Kong. and Japan on conformity and re­volt: effects of Chinese Communist literary and cultural policies on promising writers of the pre-Communist years

GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies. spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­Joseph Grunwald (chairman). John P. Augelli. John T. Dorsey, Jr., Munro S. Edmonson. Mario Ojeda Gomez. Enrique Oteiza. Stanley R. Ross. and Joseph Sommers-at its meeting on February 7-S awarded 25 grants for research, 1 study and research grant. and 4 collaborative research grants:

Research grants Thomas P. Anderson. Assistant Professor of History.

Wheeling College. for research in El Salvador on the Communist uprising there in 1932

Ward J. Barrett, Associate Professor of Geography. Uni­versity of Minnesota, for research in Mexico and the United States on a historical geography of the cane sugar industry of Morelos

Richard Blackhurst, Assistant Professor of Economics, Rutgers - The State University. for research on the effects of trade preferences on Latin America's export trade

Hans Buechler, Assistant Professor of Anthropology. Syra­cuse University. for research in Bolivia on social net­works in the Department of La Paz

David Bushnell. Professor of History. University of Florida, for research in Venezuela and Colombia on the regional and socioeconomic bases of political align­ments in Gran Colombia. IS21-30. and in New Gra­nada, IS30-45

W. Raymond Duncan. Associate Professor of Political Science. State University of New York at Brockport, for research in Cuba on nation building since January 1959

John Felstiner, Assistant Professor of English. Stanford University, for a comparative study in Mexico of Al­turas de Macchu Picchu, by Pablo Neruda, and Four Quartets, by T. S. Eliot

MARCH 1969

Irving Goldman, Professor of Anthropology, Sarah Law­rence College, for a restudy in Colombia of the Cubeo Indians of the Vaupes

Tulio Halperin. Lecturer on History, Harvard Univer­sity. for research in Argentina on its public revenue and military expenditures, IS1O-S0

J ames A. Hanson, Assistant Professor of Economics, Brown University, for research in Venezuela on its agricultural development in the twentieth century

Jose Roberto Juarez. Associate Professor of History, St. Edward's University, for research in Mexico on the economic power and social justice policies of the Arch­diocese of Guadalajara as factors III the revolution of 1910

Albert Lauterbach, Professor of Political Economy, Sarah Lawrence College, for comparative research in Vene­zuela. Colombia. and Chile on management education for socioeconomic development

Robert M. Levine. Assistant Professor of History, State University of New York at Stony Brook. for research in Brazil on regional development and national inte­gration: Pernambuco. 1880-1945

Joseph L. Love, Assistant Professor of History. Univer­sity of Illinois. for research in Brazil on regional de­velopment and national integration: Sao Paulo, ISSO-1945

Anthony P. Maingot. Assistant Professor of History and Sociology, Yale University, for research in Cuba on the revision of Cuban history

June Nash, Associate Professor of Anthropology. New York University. for research in Bolivia on reinter­pretations of national ideologies in Quechua-speaking mining communities

Robert A. Potash. Professor of History. University of Massachusetts. for research in Argentina and Spain on the army and politics in Argentina, 1945-66

Francine F. Rabinovitz. Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science. University of California, Los Angeles, for research on Latin American urban and political development

Stephen L. Rozman. Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Nebraska. for research in El Salvador on the socialization of military rule

Philippe C. Schmitter, Assistant Professor of Political Science. University of Chicago. for research in Argen­tina on relations between social and economic develop­ment and changes in the nature and role of representa­tive associations in Argentine politics, 1930-66

Peter H. Smith, Assistant Professor of History, Univer­sity of Wisconsin, for research in Mexico on political leadership, legitimacy, and the Revolution

Sister Margaret Thornton, Professor of History, Munde­lein College, for research on the church in the Old Brazilian Republic, ISS9-1930

Robert C. Vogel, Assistant Professor of Economics, Wes­leyan University, for research in Costa Rica on agri­cultural credit and pricing policies

John D. Wirth, Assistant Professor of History, Stanford University, for research in Brazil on regional develop­ment and national integration: Minas Gerais, ISSO-1945

James E. Zinser, Assistant Professor of Economics, Oberlin College, for research in Argentina on the extent and effects of private foreign investment in that country

t~

Stud'} and research grant

Winthrop R. Wright, Assistant Professor of History, Uni­versity of Maryland, for comparative research in Vene­zuela and the United States on Afro-American social integration, 1900-1968

Collaborative resem'ch grants

Henry F. Dobyns, Professor of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, and Mario C. Vazquez, Professor of Anthropology, Pontifical Catholic University, Lima, for a resurvey in Peru of indigenous communities

Juan J. Linz, Professor of Sociology and Political Science, Yale University, and Juan F. Marsal, Director, Center for Social Research, Torcuato Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires, for comparative research in Spain on the role of the intellectual in Argentina, Mexico, and Spain

Richard D. Mallon, Development Adviser, Harvard Uni­versity, and Juan V. Sourrouille, Chief, National Accounts Section, United Nations Economic Commis­sion for Latin America, for completion of research on recent Argentine economic policy in relation to political-institutional constraints (renewal)

Clark W. Reynolds, Associate Professor of Economics, Stanford University, and Leopoldo Solis, Chief, Re­search Department, Bank of Mexico, for research in Latin America on financial intermediation, public policy, and growth: a comparative study of selected countries, with emphasis on Brazil and Mexico

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies -William M. Brinner (chairman), Morroe Berger, Leon Carl Brown, Oleg Grabar, Malcolm H. Kerr, Bernard Lewis, and I. William Zartman-at its meeting on February 22-23 awarded 13 grants for research:

Hamid Algar, Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Lan­guages, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Europe and the Near East on a history of the Naqsh­bandiya, a Sufi order

Ariel A. Bloch, Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Lan-

guages, University of California, Berkeley, for research on the syntax of modern literary Arabic

Kenneth L. Brown, Research Associate in History and the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, University of Chi­cago, for research in Morocco on Arabic sources relating to the social history of the Sus region of southern Morocco in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

Erika Lamer Friedl, Instructor in Anthropology, Western Michigan University, for a physical anthropological survey in the Boir Ahmad area, Southwest Iran, and research on religion and family organization in the changing tribal culture (joint with Reinhold Lamer)

Arthur E. Goldschmidt, Jr" Assistant Professor of History, Pennsylvania State University, for research in Europe and the Near East on the Egyptian Nationalist move­ment, from Ahmad Arabi to Mustafa Kamil

Norman Itzkowitz, Associate Professor of Oriental Studies, Princeton University, for research in Turkey and Eng­land on the decline of the Ottoman Empire as seen by Ottoman writers at the end of the sixteenth century

Stephen L. Klineberg, Assistant Professor of Social Psy­chology, Princeton University, for research in Tunis on the psychological impact of formal education on rural migrants

Bernard Lazerwitz, Professor of Sociology, University of Missouri, for research in Israel on actual and potential fertility changes among Jews and Arabs in Israel

Reinhold Lamer, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, for research in South­west Iran on the process of cultural change among the Boir Ahmad (joint with Erika Lamer Friedl)

Kenneth A. Luther, Assistant Professor of Persian Studies, University of Michigan, for research in Iran and the United States on the cultural and intellectual history of medieval Iran

Brian J. Spooner, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, for an ethnographic and sociolinguistic study in East Central Iran of an oasis settlement

Talat Tekin, Assistant Professor of Turkish, University of California, Berkeley, for linguistic research in Af­ghanistan on Turkic dialects

Walter F. Weiker, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rutgers - The State University, Newark, for research in Turkey on social and economic growth and political attitudes and perceptions in selected provincial capitals

NEW PUBLICATIONS

The Central Middle East: A Handbook of Anthropolog;y, edited by Louise E. Sweet. Product of a project initiated by the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files, September 1968. HRAFlex Book MI-OOI. 2 vols. 420 pages. $13.50.

China in Revolution: The First Phase, 1900-1913, edited by Mary Clabaugh Wright. Product of the Conference on the Chinese Revolution of 1911, sponsored by the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, August 22-27, 1965. New Haven: Yale University Press, November 1968. 518 pages. $15.00.

14

Conduct and Conscience: The Socialization of Internalized Control over Behavior, by Justin Aronfreed. Expansion of a paper prepared for the conference on moral develop­ment, held by the former Committee on Socialization and Social Structure, October 31-November .3, 1963. New York: Academic Press, October 1968. 414 pages. $12.50.

The Construction Industry in Communist China, by Kang Chao. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, February 1968.252 pages. $8.75.

Early Education: Current Theory, Research, and Action,

VOLUME 23. NU~{BER 1

edited by Robert D. Hess and Roberta M. Bear. Papers prepared for the Conference on Preschool Education, sponsored by the Committee on Learning and the Educa­tional Process, February 7-9, 1966. Chicago: Aldine Pub­lishing Company, March 1968.282 pages. $6.95.

Economic Trends in Communist China, edited by Alexan­der Eckstein, Walter Galenson, and Ta-Chung Liu. Prod­uct of a conference sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China, October 21-23, 1965. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, September 1968. 757 pages. $17.50.

Genetics, edited by David C. Glass. Papers prepared for the conference cosponsored by Rockefeller University, Russell Sage Foundation, and the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior, November 18-19, 1966. New York: Rockefeller University Press and Russell Sage Foundation, May 1968. 270 pages. $7.50.

Language Problems of Developing Nations, edited by Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A. Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta. Papers prepared for the conference sponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics, November 1-3, 1966. New York: John Wiley & Sons, September 1968. 536 pages. $12.95.

Metropolitan Area Definition: A Re-evaluation of Concept and Statistical Practice, U.S. Bureau of the Census Work­ing Paper No. 28, by Brian J. L. Berry with Peter G. Goheen and Harold Goldstein. Report on a study made for the former Committee on Areas for Social and Eco­nomic Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, June 1968. 51 pages. 50 cents.

The Nature of Fascism: Proceedings of a Conference Held by the Reading University Graduate School of Con­temporary European Studies, edited by S. J. Woolf. Product of a conference held with the aid of the Com­mittee on Comparative Politics, April 3-4, 1967. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, November 1968. 268 pages.

People of Rural America, by Dale E. Hathaway, J. Allan Beegle, and W. Keith Bryant. Sponsored by the former Committee on Population Census Monographs in co­operation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, January 1969. 298 pages. $3.50.

Political Research and Political Theory, edited by Oliver Garceau. Prepared with the assistance of the Council. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, September 1968. 266 pages. $7.95.

Political Science and Public Policy, edited by Austin Ran­ney. Product of conferences sponsored by the Committee on Governmental and Legal Processes, June 15-17, 1966 and August 28-29, 1967. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, September 1968. 300 pages. $5.95.

Public Policy, Vol. 17, edited by John D. Montgomery and Albert O. Hirschman. Includes 5 papers prepared for the Conference on Military Occupations and Political Change, held by the Committee on Comparative Politics, April 20-22, 1967: "The Legacies of the Occupation of Germany," by Carl J. Friedrich; "The Potential for Democratization in Occupied Germany: A Problem in Historical Projection," by Leonard Krieger; "Allied Strategies of Effecting Political Change and Their Recep­tion in Occupied Germany," by Peter H. Merkl; "Soviet Occupation in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary," by Hugh Seton-Watson; "The Potential for Democratiza­tion in Prewar Japan," by Robert E. Ward. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, September 1968. 474 pages. $7.00.

Revolutionary Russia, edited by Richard Pipes. Product of the conference on the Russian Revolution, cosponsored by the Joint Committee on Slavic Studies and the Harvard University Russian Research Center, April 4-9, 1967. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, January 1968. 376 pages. $7.95.

Socialization and Society, edited by John A. Clausen, with contributions also by Orville G. Brim, Jr., Alex Inkeles, Ronald Lippitt, Eleanor E. Maccoby, and M. Brewster Smith. Report of the former Committee on Socialization and Social Structure. Boston: Little, Brown and Com­pany, June 1968. 416 pages. $5.50.

The Spatial Economy of Communist China, by Yuan-li Wu. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on the Economy of China. New York: Frederick A. Praeger for the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, January 1968. 386 pages. $10.00.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

2110 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK. N.Y. 10017

Incorporated in the State 0/ Illinois, December 27, 1924, lor the purpose 0/ advancing research in the social sciences

Directors, 1969: WILLIAM O. AYDELOlTE, ABRAM BERGSON. PETER M. BLAU, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, JAMES S. COLEMAN, ELIZABETH COLSON, HAROLD

C. CONKLIN. LEE J. CRONBACH. PHILIP D. CURTIN, DANIEL X. FREEDMAN, ZVI GRILICHES. MORRIS H. HANSEN. CHAUNCY D. HARRIS, SAMUEL P. HAYS.

DELL HYMES, GARDNER LINDZEY. GEOFFREY H. MOORE, JAMES N. MORGAN, FREDERICK MOSTELLER, DON K. PRICE, AUSTIN RANNEY, ALBERT REEs, HENRY

W. RIECKEN, HERBERT A. SIMON, NEIL J. SMELSER, ALLAN H. SMITH, JOHN THIBAUT, DAVID B. TRUMAN, ROBERT E. WARD

Officers and Staff: HENRY W. RrEcKEN, President; PAUL 'VEBBlNK, Vice-President; ELBRIDGE SIBLEY, BRYCE 'VOOD, Executive Associates; ELEANOR

C. ISBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., NORMAN W. STORER, Staff Associates; STANLEY LEHMANN, Consultant; CATHERINE V. RONNAN, Financial Secretary

MARCH 1969

.... 3

15

ANNOUNCEMENTS SUMMER TRAINING INSTITUTE

ON GENETICS AND BEHAVIOR FOR DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGISTS,

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, JUNE 16 - JULY 25, 1969

This six-week summer institute will be conducted under the auspices of the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior, with support provided by a grant to the Council from the National Institute of Mental Health.

The purpose of the institute is to provide a conceptual framework of genetics for psychologists whose primary in­terest is in the developmental processes of behavior.

Instruction will be offered at the advanced graduate and postdoctoral levels. Applicants, who must be citizens of the United States or have filed a declaration of intent to be­come a citizen, should have completed a minimum of one year of graduate instruction prior to the beginning of the institute. All participants will be required to attend the en­tire program.

Stipends will be available in the amount of $600 for pre­doctoral trainees and $700 for postdoctoral. Travel expenses will be provided up to an equivalent of round-trip economy jet airline fare. No allowances for dependents will be provided.

The director of the summer training institute will be Gerald E. McClearn, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado. Other members of the teaching staff will be drawn from the faculty of the University. In addition, there will be guest lecturers.

The program is designed to provide participants in the training institute with an appreciation of the different types of genetic knowledge that have relevance to behavior in general and specifically with an important frame of refer­ence in conceptualizing problems of behavior development. The curriculum will include discussions of the principal concepts of major areas of genetics: transmission genetics,

16

cytogenetics, quantitative genetics, developmental genetics, and evolutionary genetics, with special emphasis on develop­mental genetics. The course will consist of lectures, sem­inars, laboratory exercises, demonstrations, films, and a limited number of field trips. Special emphasis will be placed throughout on opportunities for individual discus­sions with staff members and with other participants.

Application forms may be obtained from Dr. G. E. Mc­Clearn, Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302. Completed applica­tions must be in his hands by April 8, 1969. Announcement of awards will be made about April 15.

FOREIGN SCHOLARS AVAILABLE FOR APPOINTMENT IN U.S. UNIVERSITIES

AND COLLEGES UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE FULBRIGHT-HAYS ACT, 1969-70

In March 1969 the Committee on International Exchange of Persons, Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, will issue a list of foreign scholars available un­der the provisions of the Fulbright-Hays Act for appoint­ments in American colleges and universities during the aca­demic year-1969-70. This list, compiled annually, includes information about scholars nominated by the binational Educational Commissions and Foundations abroad for Fulbright-Hays travel grants covering costs of round-trip transportation from the home country to the United States, provided arrangements can be completed for a lecturing or a research appointment with appropriate stipend at an American institution of higher learning. Information re­garding the procedures for extending invitations and the conditions of appointment is also included.

A copy of the list and additional information about indi­vidual scholars may be obtained from: Miss Grace E. L. Haskins, Program Officer, Committee on International Ex­change of Persons, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Wash­ington, D.C. 20418.

VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1