Items Vol. 12 No. 3 (1958)

Page 1



REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL'S COMMITTEE ON HISTORICAL ANALYSIS by Louis Gottschalk ... To SOCIAL scientists accustomed to dividing science into descriptive and analytical functions, the term "historical analysis" might imply that a Committee on Historical Analysis would from the outset be committed to the study of the process by which history might become a nomothetic science. To historians accustomed to thinking of historical method as being first a process of analysis of testimony for credible details and then a synthesis of those details into a plausible context, the same term may seem to mean that a Committee on Historical Analysis would be primarily interested in the careful assessment of particulars without concern for their subsequent synthesis. This confusion is all to the good, because the Council's committee early decided that it had no desire to indicate a preference for history either as a study of the unique or as a study of the general. Nevertheless its members agreed unanimously that historians, like all other word-using humans, do in fact generalize, though some do so implicitly or unconsciously rather than explicitly, and that they would do so (or, if they preferred, avoid doing so) with greater intelligence and usefulness if they made a deliberate effort to be aware of and to examine the generalizations that they were in fact employing. The committee therefore became primarily • The author, Professor of Modern History at the University of Chicago, is chairman of the Committee on Historical Analysis and a member of the board of directors of the Council. The present account is his Annual Report to the Council on the progress of the committee's work. The other members of the committee are: w. O. Aydelotte, State University of Iowa; Thomas C. Cochran, University of Pennsylvania; Merle Cuni, University of Wisconsin; Roy F. Nichols, University of Pennsylvania; and David M. Potter, Yale University.

concerned with the problem of making the historian self-conscious about his use or abuse of generalizations. It felt, besides, that more light would be shed on its problem by consideration of generalizations in connection with substantive historical data than by consideration of historical generalizations in the abstract. In the two years of its existence the committee has gone through three phases. At first, anxious to avoid any imputation that it was trying to oblige historians to be social scientists, it adopted tlle principle of merely keeping informed about and encouraging the efforts of others to examine the problem of generalization. During this phase the committee was in part responsible for two conferences in June 1957-a conference at Stanford University on generalizations regarding the history of large-scale communities and another at Rutgers Universityon generalizations regarding the history of American political behavior. Members of the committee took part in both these conferences as well as a third, at the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association in 1957, on the causes of the American Civil War. It soon seemed likely that, if this procedure were to result in a set of essays, they would be a disjointed set, refighting national crises, presidential elections, the Civil War, and similar debatable subjects. They would perhaps astutely indicate the abuse of generalizations in past debates about such historical episodes, but might not lead to useful generalizations about the process itself of historical generalization. The committee then thought that perhaps it ought to select for its own consideration a single historical development, with a view to examining the generalizations


and comparative propositions that had come out of the study of that development. It agreed upon the concept of national character as a good subject for such an examination, and contemplated asking interested specialists in the other social sciences to meet with it in order to extend and intensify the critique of the historians' generalizations about national character. Further reflection, however, led to dropping this approach, out of the apprehension that it might lead to a series of debates on national character or a set of essays by nonhistorians criticizing the historians' concept of national character, all of which might have intrinsic merit but might not deal directly and explicitly with the assumed tendency of historians to generalize and with what, if anything, to do about that tendency. CURRENT PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE The committee therefore embarked upon a third, its present, phase: It selected mature historians who had worked intensively on some important phases of history and who in the course of their study must have become familiar with the conflicting literature and interpretations of their fields, and invited them to write essays, which, setting forth some of the generalizations found in that literature, would undertake a critique indicating which generalizations in their judgment were wholly valid, partly valid, or wholly invalid, and why. In this way the committee hopes eventually to have in hand a set of essays dealing with the problem of the historians' generalizations in several different contexts and from several varying points of view. From those essays as a point of departure it may then be in a position to consult other social scientists about the general problem. Of five historians invited to undertake the desired essays three accepted: Walter P. Metzger of Columbia University, Robert R. Palmer of Princeton, and Arthur F. Wright of Stanford. Fortunately they are well distributed among the important areas of history-being, respectively, an American historian, a modern European historian, and an orientalist. In order to suggest without dictating to these authors the lines along which the committee had been thinking, each was sent a definition of history that seemed acceptable for the committee's purposes 1 and a "loose and tentative" outline of the prob1 "The historian deals with people as individuals or as aggregates acting in relation to other individuals or aggregates, responding with more or less freedom to forces in the natural or man-made environment, and motivated to follow a course of thought or action, often in preference to alternative courses of thought or action-with the result that certain manifest developments occur. These manifestations take place in a specific context of culture and institutions and modify it or are modified by it, thus bringing about historical change. The historian also frequently draws conclusions, if not on the value and wisdom

lems of generalization as seen by the committee. The major headings in this outline were: (1) Levels of generalization used; (2) Kinds of generalization used; (3) Sources of the generalizations used; (4) Subjects of generalization; (5) Critique of the generalizations used; (6) Suggestions for testing the validity of these and similar generalizations. The prospective author was informed that he was free to use his own judgment how best to employ the suggested outline or any part of it. At a meeting on June 2, 1958, the committee was able to consider three papers. One of these was by Robert R. Palmer and was entitled "The Historian's Use of Generalizations," and two were by Arthur F. Wright. Of those two, one had been prepared especially for the committee and was entitled "On the Origins and Uses of Certain Generalizations in the Study of Chinese History: A Sketch for a Paper"; the other had been prepared for another purpose and was entitled "The Study of Chinese Civilization." Since Wright's first article was in part dependent upon the second, both were made available for the committee's consideration. Palmer's paper, concerned with the problems of generalization that he had encountered in the preparation of his own forthcoming book, elicited oral and written comments that may lead to further consideration, among other things, of a particularly crucial issue: Should the historian, or can he usefully, make generalizations of universal validity? Are not his efforts better directed to the examination and rejection, verification, or modification of already available general and comparative concepts relevant to his subject of research? If his investigation leads him to confirm old concepts or to affirm new ones about his subject, ought he to leave to others the serious investigation as to how far they may be applicable to other subjects of historical study? Wright's papers raised, among other things, the problems encountered when investigators from one culture attempt to understand the history of another. He indicated the dangers of misguidance both from the concepts (whether mere word translations, stylized interpretations, or broad deterministic hypotheses) brought to the investigation by the investigator and from those found by him in the culture under investigation. He pointed out also the lack in the West of accurate or sufficient data about many areas of Chinese history-a situation which made it desirable on the one hand to fill in tlle gaps with tentative hypotheses of a general nature, and difficult on the other to propound general hypotheses of enduring validity. of given courses of thought or action, at least on their elIectiveness and consequences." (The definition is almost entirely the composition of David Potter.)


Since the June meeting some progress has been made. Correspondence among the committee's members and the authors has produced a number of challenging questions and comments relevant to its problem. In addition, David S. Nivison of Stanford University has sent them (with his compliments) a list of books and articles on the philosophy of history that have appeared since the publication of the Selected Reading List in Council Bulletin 54, Theory and Practice in Historical Study: A Report of the Committee on Historiography (1946). Walter P. Metzger is engaged in preparation of his paper

for the committee, which will deal with generalizations by historians around a single theme-that of national character. Thus the committee hopes to have for its consideration at its next meeting the discussions that have resulted from Palmer's presentation of the problems that a single historian copes with in making generalizations, and from Wright's presentation of the problems that historians from one culture cope with in making generalizations about another, as well as Metzger's presentation of the problem that historians in general encounter when dealing with common or similar subjects.


WITH the large and increasing numbers of persons attending college, it is important to know as much as possible about the impact of the college experience on the developing personality and subsequent life patterns of the students. Over and above the imparting of knowledge and skills, and the preparation for occupational roles, the effects of college as a cultural institution in the socialization process are largely unknown and merit careful study. To what extent does a college modify or support the values and goals of its students? How does it influence the particular interests and attitudes of its graduates? Does college promote conformity or freedom; bigotry or tolerance; conservatism or change? And for each question that can be asked about college experience in general, there are a host of questions about the different kinds of college experience that affect different students in different ways. Recognizing the potential contribution of research to these questions, the Social Science Research Council in October 1957 appointed a new Committee on Personality Development in Youth. 1 The committee held its second meeting on March 25-26 at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford. In addition to committee members the following guests were present: Frank Barron and Lloyd Morrisett, Jr. of the University of California, Berkeley; Dyke Brown,


1 The members of the committee are Ralph Tyler, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (chairman); Dana L. Farnsworth, Harvard University; T. R. McConnell, University of California, Berkeley; Theodore M. Newcomb, University of Michigan; C. Robert Pace, Syracuse University; Nevitt Sanford, University of California, Berkeley; and Robin M. Williams, Jr., Cornell University; staff, Donald G. Marquis.

Ford Foundation; Richard Christie, Columbia University; and Ronald Lippitt, University of Michigan. Following a discussion of the current work and interests of the participants, the group formulated a number of general objectives for committee activity: (I) a summary and review of knowledge and methods in the field, in the form of an annotated bibliography, symposium, monograph, or some combination of these; (2) stimulation and facilitation of research at educational institutions on personality development, perhaps by conducting a summer training institute; (3) development of concepts and measures useful in such research, for example, in a small summer seminar; and (4) encouragement of comparative study at different institutions. It was decided to employ the funds available for use by the committee in pursuit of the above objectives, and not to undertake a program of grants-in-aid of research. As a next step in organizing its program the committee sponsored a conference of research workers actively engaged in the conduct or planning of investigations of the personality and life patterns of alumni who had been studied during their college years. This conference was held at the University of Michigan on June 23-28. The participants included the following psychologists, sociologists, and educators: Ralph W. Tyler, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (chairman); Robert C. Birney and Haskell R. Coplin, Amherst College; James S. Davie and Ernst Prelinger, Yale University; Robert A. Ellis, Stanford University; Starke R. Hathaway, University of Minnesota; Jean Macfarlane, Donald W. MacKinnon, and Nevitt Sanford, University of California, Berkeley; Charles C. McArthur, Har-


vard University; Bernice Neugarten, University of Chicago; Gerard G. Neuman, Illinois Social Welfare Foundation; Theodore M. Newcomb, University of Michigan; Walter T. Plant, San Jose State College; Esther Raushenbush, Sarah Lawrence College; Morris Rosenberg, National Institute of Mental Health; and Donald G. Marquis, Social Science Research Council. The general purpose of the sessions was to exchange information about current research, to discuss plans for future studies by the participants, and to find, if possible, some common concepts and measures that could be used in a number of studies to facilitate comparisons and broader interpretations.

amount of influence at different stages. More than one class should be followed in order to avoid the confounding effects of major contemporary events and general cultural changes on the measurement of the student changes. Follow-up studies after graduation, with all the difficulties and expense of locating and studying a scattered population, are necessary to evaluate the persistence of the college influences and their consequences in later life. The nature of the college experience, of course, varies greatly from one institution to another, and within the same institution from one subculture to another. A student who lives in a fraternity house is exposed to environmental influences very different from those affecting one who lives at home or in a dormitory. Before it RESEARCH IN PROGRESS will be possible to draw general conclusions from scienThe discussions by the work group, together with tific studies it will be necessary to characterize and earlier ones by the committee, indicated clearly the in- categorize the different cultural environments. Many adequacy of present knowledge of the effects of different impressions of these environments are now a part of our college environments on the developing attitudes, in- folklore (e.g., "Illinois is more athletics-minded than terests, values, and life styles of students. In a compre- Chicago"; "Princeton is more conservative than Antihensive review of research on Changing Values in och"; "Harvard is a quite different college for different College J 2 Jacob found only two dozen studies of change students"), and there is great need for systematic descripin characteristics of students during their college years. tion. Robert Pace at Syracuse University is developing Several of the studies spanned only one year, and others a multiple-item inventory by which students, faculty, were based on use of a single test measure. Comprehen- and administrators can characterize the actual informal sive studies of student change have been or are being culture with its norms, prescriptions, sanctions, and carried out at Bennington College, by Theodore M. rewards. Newcomb; at Sarah Lawrence College, by Esther We do not know what aspects of college life are most Raushenbush; at Princeton University, by Frederick F. significant in influencing students: Books, courses, facStephan; at Vassar College, by Nevitt Sanford; at Cornell ulty, friends, independence, or what? There is a growing University, by Edward Suchman, Robin M. Williams, awareness of the importance of the peer group in deJr., and Rose Goldsen; and at Amherst College, by termining the nature of the college culture for any stuHaskell R. Coplin, Robert C. Birney, and others. Com- dent. The admissions policies of colleges, and the selfparably extensive studies are now being planned at Har- selection in applications and dropouts result in great vard University by Dana Farnsworth; at Yale by Bryant diversity among the students at different colleges. And Wedge, James S. Davie, and Ernst Prelinger; at the Uni- since tllere is effective pressure in social groups generally, versity of California, Berkeley, by T. R. McConnell; and and in college specifically, toward conformity to group more limited studies are being planned at a few other norms, it follows that a student will be influenced in institutions. Several comprehensive researches on chang- directions determined by the composition of the student ing characteristics of medical students are in progress. body. Jacob emphasizes the leveling effect of college on student values: "There is more homogeneity and greater consistency of values among students at the end of their PROBLEMS IN DESIGNING RESEARCH four years than when they begin. Fewer seniors espouse The scope and difficulty of systematic research in this beliefs which deviate from the going standards than do field are immediately apparent, and the requirements for freshmen." And in another connection he points out that a satisfactory research design are indeed formidable. "the intellectual, cultural or moral climate of some instiMeasurement of student change in the college environ- tutions stands out from the crowd ... where there is ment calls for longitudinal study with assessment at the such unity and vigor of expectation, students seem beginning and end of the period in college and prefer- drawn to live up to the college standard, even if it means ably at intermediate points to determine the nature and quite a wrench from their previous ways of thought." 3 The documented differences in student populations at 2 Philip E. Jacob. Changing T'alues in College, New York: Harper &: 31bid., pp. 6. 10-11.

Brothers. 1957.


different colleges also place important limitations on lasting influence upon the later religious beliefs and comparison of the products of these colleges. For ex- practices of its graduates. The current studies at Vassar ample, the interpretation of the findings of Knapp and and Princeton, and the projected follow-up of students collaborators 4 on the differing rates of production of studied twenty years ago at Bennington and Sarah scientists and scholars has been challenged by Holland,o Lawrence will provide the first systematic data on such whose studies of National Merit Scholars indicate that questions. The extensive materials collected in some of differences among the colleges can be largely accounted the classic longitudinal studies carried out by child defor in terms of the differences in ability of the students velopment centers may offer possibilities for exploraat the time of entrance to college. We are left with the tory analysis of college influences. implication that the "superiority" of a college may operA major difficulty in research design is the problem of ate through its attractiveness to superior students. demonstrating that changes occurring between freshman Individual differences among students introduce an- and senior years may be attributed to the college exother set of variables which must be considered in plan- perience. It does not seem feasible to compose a control ning research on college influences. The "same" college group of persons similar to college samples but who do culture may have quite different effects on two students not go to college. The outlook, however, is not hopeless. of different basic personality or with different life ex- It is important to generalize about people who do go to periences. The importance of socioeconomic status, college, and even more valuable to study the different parent expectations, and identification with parents was kinds of changes in similar students who enter different emphasized in discussions at the Ann Arbor conference. educational environments. Participants agreed on the desirability of assessing the students' personality and background initially by means NATURE OF COLLEGE INFLUENCES of standardized methods that would yield data comAttempts to designate the particular attitudes, values, parable from one study to another. Measures of individual differences cannot be expected motives, and personality characteristics most appropriate to yield direct prediction of change in college, but at for study were extensively discussed by the work group. best a prediction based on the interaction of personali ty Such dependent variables ideally would show an effect characteristics with the particular type of college ex- during college, would vary with type of student, would perience. The most important predictor may be some be important in the sense of making a difference in later feature of concordance or discrepancy between the indi- life, and would be capable of satisfactory measurement. Several general approaches can be recognized. One vidual and the college. In this area of knowledge may lie approach is in terms of the educational objectives of cola prospect of improved bases for guiding students' selection of colleges and programs within a college, as well as leges as stated in catalogs and commencement addresses. designing special educational programs for different Such objectives, however, do not bear any necessary relation to actual college influences, and are not usually kinds of students. Follow-up studies of the persistence or consequences formulated so as to suggest specific methods of measuring of individual changes during college are almost non- them. A better idea of the objectives of the college may existent. There are many surveys comparing college be gained by asking faculty and administrators to degraduates with nongraduates in respect to a wide variety scribe the characteristics of an ideal student. A second approach is the empirical one of discovering of characteristics, but such studies do not include any data on the effect of the experience as measured by what changes actually occur. On the basis of measured change during college. It is known. for example, that differences between first- and fourth-year students at some college students come to value religion more, and Vassar in a large number of test scores, Sanford has deothers to value it less; that institutions differ in this in- scribed the changes as follows: "Seniors have more cultifluence; and that many graduates show shifts in one or vated tastes, broader interests, greater attachment to the the other direction when studied after fifteen years. But things of the mind. They are less authoritarian, less conthe relevant studies were based on different samples, ventional and conforming, less fundamentalist in reand there is no way to infer whether a college had any ligious outlook; they show more awareness and appreciation of the diversity of viewpoints a~opted by others, and are more liberal in their views on interpersonal re• R. H. Knapp and H. n. Goodrich, Origins of American Scientists, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952: R. H. Knapp and J. J. lationships. . . . They are well ahead of freshmen in Greenbaum, The Younger American Scholar: His Collegiate Origins, flexibility of thinking, capacity to suspend judgment, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. tolerance of ambiguity, skepticism, criticalness, realism. 5 John L. Holland, "Undergraduate Origins of American Scientists," .. They are more assertive, rebellious, adventurous; Science, September 6, 1957, pp. 433-437.

less passive, less modest, less submissive; they have greater breadth of consciousness, more self-insight, more familiarity with their inner life." 6 Another empirical approach is to ask students and alumni what significant influences they recognize from their college experience. Still another would be to identify ideal stu,dents, as judged by faculty and peers, and through studying them to discover the attributes valued in that college. A third approach to the choice of variables for study is based on general theories of personality development. Significant aspects or stages of the process of growing and maturing would be selected for study. For example, independence from home and parents increases in late adolescence, and one can ask how college affects this development. No general agreement on a list of concepts and measures was attempted, and indeed such a list would be impossible at the present stage of work in the field. It was recognized that much more needs to be done in all approaches to the selection of variables, but the following general areas of interest, based in large part on Sanford's interviews of alumnae, were accepted as deserving study: 1. Disposition to use problem-solving, fact-finding, intellectual methods in coping with problems and crises, as contrasted with methods such as denial or faith. 2. Broad perspective, tolerance, liberalism, independence of judgment, flexibility (vs. the "authoritarian complex").

3. The growth of autonomous interests with increasing depth. 4. Mature personal relations, with independence from parents. 5. Freedom of impulse expression, readiness to tryout adventurous ideas and activities. 6. Establishment of sense of identity, integrated selfconcept. 7. Social and civic responsibility, with active participation in such activities. 8. Relative values as evidenced in measures such as the Allport-Vernon Scale. This list is not meant to be comprehensive or inclusive, and does not refer to mental health, masculinityfemininity, specific beliefs, attitudes, and other characteristics which have been the subject of study. Turning to a consideration of methods available for the measurement of variables such as those listed above, the conference produced a wealth of stimulating suggestions and the expected amount of disagreement on general approach. Some members strongly defended the clinical study of individuals, with intensive depth interviews and projective tests in order to gain a full understanding of the total person. Others emphasized the objectivity and comparability gained by the use of standardized tests, the interpretation of which is guided by the many researches contributing to their validation. There was agreement that both kinds of assessment should be employed when feasible, with intensive study of a subsample of individuals selected to represent critical types disclosed by the test scores.

6 Nevitt Sanford, "The Impact of a Woman's College on Its Students," paper read at the 22nd Education Conference under the auspices of the Educational Records Bureau and the American Council on Education, New York, November I, 1957, pp. 4-5.




John Perry Miller (chairman), Francis M. Boddy, Robert W. Burgess, Howard C. Grieves, Frank A. Hanna, George J. Stigler, Ralph J. Watkins, J. Fred Weston.

Gabriel A. Almond (chairman), Taylor Cole, James S. Coleman, Roy C. Macridis, Sigmund Neumann, Guy J. Pauker, Lucian W. Pye, Walter R. Sharp; staff, Bryce Wood.

The committee has made arrangements for a fourth study in its program, which is carried on in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, to stimulate research based on data collected in the recent economic censuses. Ralph L. Nelson, Assistant Professor of Economics at Northwestern University, has undertaken an analysis of the significance of current data on concentration and mergers of firms in selected manufacturing industries.

In addition to the 5 grants for field studies of political groups in foreign areas, reported in Items, March 1958, page 9, an award has been made jointly by the Committee on Comparative Politics and the Committee on the Near and Middle East, to Leonard Binder, Instructor in Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Iran on the political role of the Ulama in Pakistan. The two committees also co-sponsored a third research planning 30

seminar in the series organized by the Committee on Comparative Politics for recipients of its grants for field studies. This seminar was for the recipients of grants for research in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, under the programs of both committees, and was held at Endicott House, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, on May 4-6, 1958. As in the earlier seminars, the purpose was to develop plans for collaborative research among the grantees and to invite their cooperation in the collection of certain basic data in the form of inventories of political groups in the areas where research would be carried out. The participants included the following grantees who expect to undertake field research during 1958-59: Leonard Binder, recipient of the joint grant; Ralph Braibanti of Duke University, Carl H. Lande of Harvard University, Gordon K. Lewis of the University of Puerto Rico, and Stanley Spector of Washington University, recipients of grants from the Committee on Comparative Politics; Panayiotis J. Vatikiotis of Indiana University, grantee of the Committee on the Near and Middle East. Lucian W. Pye and Dankwart A. Rustow, who has served as assistant to the chairman of the Committee on the Near and Middle East, were co-chairmen of the seminar. The other participants were Manfred Halpern, Department of State; George Lenczowski, University of California, Berkeley; Myron Weiner, University of Chicago; and Bryce Wood, staff for the Committee on Comparative Politics. A report on the first seminar in this series, "A Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the Political Process" by Gabriel A. Almond, was published in the American Political Science Review, March 1958. G. A. A.

"Investeringenes Effekt pA Nasjonalproduktet," Statistisk Sentralbyra Artikler No. I (1957). The third paper by the chairman of the committee in the series entitled "Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations" was published as a supplement to the July 1958 issue of Economic Development and Cultural Change, under the title "Industrial Disu'ibution of Income and Labor Force by States, United States, 1919-1921 to 1955."

FAMILY AND ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR Dale Yoder (chairman), Gary S. Becker, Orville G. Brim, Jr., Philip M. Hauser, John B. Lansing, Gladys L. Palmer, James Tobin. The committee, whose purpose is the stimulation of research on the family as a significant unit of economic behavior, has cooperated with Consumer Behavior, Inc. in planning a major conference on Models of Household Decision-Making. The conference is to be held at the University of Michigan on September 4-6, 1958. Sessions are scheduled on decision making on the following subjects: changes in family composition; saving and borrowing; allocation and spending; buying, including brand choices; husband-wife roles and careers. In planning this program an effort was made to draw equally on current research relating to the family in economics and in sociology.


Simon Kuznets (chairman), Richard Hartshorne, Melville Herskovits, Edgar M. Hoover, Bert F. Hoselitz, Wilbert E. Moore, Joseph J. Spengler.


James J. Jenkins (chairman), John B. Carroll, Joseph H. Greenberg, Alvin M. Liberman, Floyd G. Lounsbury, Charles E. Osgood, Thomas A. Sebeok, Rulon S. Wells; staff, Joseph B. Casagrande.

The European studies in the committee's program of appraisals of long-term records relating to national income, wealth, and their components, in selected foreign countries, have resulted in several additional publications during the past year: "Trends in Eighteenth-Century Smuggling" by W. A. Cole of the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Cambridge, who is Phyllis Deane's collaborator in the studies on the United Kingdom, was published in the Economic History Review, April 1958. The detailed volume on national income estimates for Italy back to 1861, by Benedetto Barberi of the Central Institute of Statistics, Rome, has been published in the Institute's Annali di Statistica, Series 8, Vol. 9 (1957). A separate 45-page summary in English, The Growth of National Income in Italy, 1861-1956, has also been published by the Institute. An analysis of some of the preliminary results of the study at the Central Statistical Bureau of Norway, by Odd Aukrust, Director of its Research Division, has been published as

Preliminary results of the committee's Southwest Project in Comparative Psycholinguistics, for which the major field research was completed in the summer of 1956, were critically reviewed at a conference of the project staff held at the University of Illinois last fall. Further analysis of the field data, including extensive factor analysis, and the collection of additional data on English-speaking and other control groups have continued during the year. These findings are being incorporated in the over-all report on the project, which is in preparation under the editorship of its director, John B. Carroll. Meanwhile separate reports on the numerous component studies continue to be published as articles and monographs. An article reporting some of the results of the research conducted among the Hopi and Navaho Indians, "The Function of Language Classifications in Behavior," by John B. Carroll and Joseph B. Casagrande, 31

has been published in Readings in Social Psychology, edited by Eleanor Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley (3rd ed.; New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1958). Zuni Dictionary by Stanley Newman, Publication 6 of the Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics (January 1958) is based in part on the research of the Southwest Project's Zuni team.

MATHEMATICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH William G. Madow (chairman), Carl F. Christ, Sanford M. Dornbusch, John G. Kemeny, James G. March, Philip J. McCarthy, George A. Miller, Anatol Rapoport路 staff, Elbridge Sibley. ' , The committee, appointed in January to succeed the former Committee on Mathematical Training of Social Scientists, held its first meeting on May 24. Under broadened terms of reference, it is concerned with both training and the advancement of research in statistics as well as in mathematics applicable to the social sciences. Sharing its predecessor's view that effective demand for mathematical curricula suitable for social science students will arise only when actual use is made of mathematics in social science courses, the committee is giving attention to possible ways of stimulating the introduction of courses or sections of courses in which this will be done. Several members of the committee are actively exploring possibilities in their respective social science fields. A second immediate concern is the planning of a sequence of courses in statistics for social science students, based on certain prerequisite training in mathematics. The first and second year mathematics courses proposed by the Committee on the Undergraduate Program of the Mathematical Association of America are assumed as points of departure; the latter are essentially in accord with the "Recommended Policies for the Mathematical Training of Social Scientists" issued by the Council's former committee (Items, June 1955). Other matters on the committee's tentative agenda for the coming year include problems in the application of electronic computers, personnel problems, and problems of stimulation and financial support for mathematical research in various social science fie1ds. Continuing attention is being given to plans for publication, in various journals or otherwise, of materials presented at the 1957 summer institutes on applications of mathematics for social scientists and for college teachers of mathematics. The v01ume by Samuel Goldberg, Introduction to Difference Equations: With Illustrative Examples from Economics, Psychology, and Sociology, preparation of which was aided by the former Committee on Mathematical Training of Social Scientists, was published by John Wiley & Sons in May. 32

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH Hugh R. Leavell (chairman), Benjamin D. Paul (secretary), Leona Baumgartner, Harold F. Dorn, H. van Zile Hyde, Stanley H. King, Lyle Saunders, Leo W. Simmons, John M. Weir, Donald Young. The committee held a major conference on preventive medicine and social science research, financed by a grant to the Council from the Rockefeller Foundation, at Skytop, Pa. on June 22-27. The participants included 13 physicians active in the field of public health; 6 public hea1th specialists representing the fields of biostatistics, dentistry, engineering, nursing, and health education; 10 sociologists, 6 psychologists, and 3 anthropologists. They met in morning and evening sessions to consider research areas of joint interest and to discuss ways of facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration. Stanley H. King bore the main responsibility for arranging the details of the conference. The theme of the conference was set by the question: Why do people accept or not accept public health programs? Some programs were seen as calling for single decisions and others for continuous decisions, either by individuals or by groups. Each of four logical types of decision was exemplified at the conference by one or more research reports, most of which were distributed to participants in advance. The morning session of the first day, chaired by John M. Weir, was devoted to single decisions by individuals and considered three reports: "Public Attitudes and Actions toward Polio Vaccine," by John A. Clausen of the National Institute of Mental Health; "Public Participation in Mass X-Ray Screening Programs," by Andie L. Knutson of the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley; and "Data on Acceptance or Rejection of a Request for a Clinical Examination in a Field Survey of Rheumatoid Arthritis," by Stanley H. King. Under the chairmanship of Lyle Saunders the topic for the second day, single decisions by communities, was illustrated by a paper on "Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies," by Benjamin D. Paul. On the third day Leo W. Simmons chaired a session on continuing decisions by individuals, for which George M. Foster of the University of California, Berkeley, had prepared a summary paper on "Sickness and Health in Sal Si Puedes: Mexican-Americans in a California Community"; Robert Straus of the University of Kentucky Medical Center, a paper on "Alcoholism as a Public Health Problem Involving Continuous Decisions by Individuals"; and Leo W. Simmons, a paper on "Family Culture and Participation in a Rheumatic Fever Clinic." The fourth day's session, under the chairmanship of H. van Zile Hyde, was on continuing decisions by groups. For this session George Rosen of the School of Public Health and Administrative Medicine, Columbia University, had prepared a paper on "Some Aspects of the Sociology of Medicine with Particular Reference to Prepaid Group Practice"; and John J. Adair, anthropologist, of Sandoval, New Mexico, and Walsh McDermott of the Cornell University Medical College presented ma-

William B. Edgerton (chairman), Robert F. Byrnes (secretary), Abram Bergson, C. E. Black, Merle Fainsod, Chauncy D. Harris, Charles J elavich, Henry L. Roberts,

Marshall p . Shulman, Ernest J. Simmons, S. Harrison Thomson, Sergius Yakobson. In addition to the grants for Slavic and East European Studies reported in Items, June 1958, pages 22-23, an award has been made by the Subcommittee on Grants to David T . Cattell, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, for research on the attitude and practice of the Soviet Union in respect to international law. Robert V. Daniels, Faculty of Social Science, Bennington College, who declined a grant for research on social and intellectual policies in Soviet Russia, 1929-37, has been awarded a grant-in-aid for research on Soviet party and government documents in the Trotsky Archive, Harvard University. Louis Nemzer, Associate Professor of Political Science, Ohio State University, originally named an alternate by the subcommittee, has received a grant for research on the ideology and functions of the Communist Party in Soviet society and the Soviet armed forces. Under the program announced in Items, March 1958, page 12, the subcommittee has awarded the following travel grants for attendance at an international conference on "the Soviet Union and Asia," to be held at Bad Aussee, Austria, on September 22-27, 1958, under the sponsorship of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ost, of Vienna: Oleg Hoeffding, Economics Division, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; Alex Inkeles, Professor of Sociology, Russian Research Center, Harvard University; Paul F. Langer, Assistant Professor of International Relations and History, University of Southern California; and Donald W. Treadgold, Associate Professor of History, University of Washington.



COUNCIL STAFF Lloyd Morrisett, Jr. will join the staff of the Council on September 2. A graduate of Oberlin College, Mr. Morrisett received the Ph.D. degree in psychology from Yale University in 1956, and for the past two years has been an instructor in the School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley.

On July 17 the offices of the Council were moved to Room 2301 on the 23rd floor of the same building where they have been located since 1929. The new quarters accommodate not only the staff members previously on the 27th floor but also those who had been temporarily housed on the sixth floor during the past year, following the closing of the Washington office.

terial on "The Process of Innovation and the N avahoCornell Field Health Research Project." The evening session on each day was given over to general discussion of the relationship between social science and public health. Hugh R. Leavell was general chairman at the final session of the conference; Edward S. Rogers of the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, and Donald Young summarized the results of the deliberations. Robert N. Wilson of Harvard University, who attended the conference as rapporteur, is preparing an account of the proceedings for consideration by the committee at a meeting early in the fall. During the spring, revisions of five of the memoranda prepared for the committee in earlier years were published: three in the Council's pamphlet series, as listed on page 34 infra; and two, "Ecologic Determinants of Population Growth," by Carl E. Taylor, John B. Wyon, and John E. Gordon, and "Some Directions for Research on Fertility Control," by J. Mayone Stycos, in the Milbank Memorial Fund Quarte1'[Y, April 1958.

SLAVIC STUDIES (Joint with American Council of Learned Societies)


PUBLICA lIONS Bibliographies on Personality and Social Development of the Child, Pamphlet 10, compiled by Christoph Heinicke and Beatrice B. Whiting. June 1953. 138 pages. $1.00. Exchange of Persons: The Evolution of Cross-Cultural Education, Pamphlet 9, by Guy S. Metraux. June 1952. 58 pages. 50 cents.


Migration and Mental Disease: A Study of First Admissions to Hospitals for Mental Disease, New York,19391941, by Benjamin Malzberg and Everett S. Lee, with an introduction by Dorothy S. Thomas. Sponsored by the Committee on Migration Differentials. March 1956. 152 pages. $1.50. Labor Mobility in Six Cities, prepared by Gladys L. Palmer, with the assistance of Carol P. Brainerd, for the former Committee on Labor Market Research. June 1954. 191 pages. Paper, $2.25; cloth, $2.75. Social Behavior and Personality: Contributions of W. 1. Thomas to Theory and Social Research, edited by Edmund H. Volkart. June 1951. 348 pages. Cloth, $3.00. Support for Independent Scholarship and Research, by Elbridge Sibley. Report of an inquiry jointly sponsored by the American Philosophical Society and the Social Science Research Council. May 1951. 131 pages. $1.25.

The Council's monographs, bulletins, pamphlets, and lithoprinted reports are distributed from the office of the Council, 230 Park Avenue, New York 17, N. Y.

CENSUS MONOGRAPHS These volumes, sponsored by the former Committee on Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, are published by John Wiley & Sons, New York:

The American Labor Fm'ce, by Gertrude Bancroft. August 1958. About 228 pages. Cloth, $6.50. The Fertility of American Women, by Wilson H. Grabill, Clyde V. Kiser, and P. K. Whelpton. August 1958. About 464 pages. Cloth, $9.50. The Older Population of the United States, by Henry D. Sheldon. July 1958. 236 pages. Cloth, $6.00. Ame1'ica's Children, by Eleanor H. Bernert. February 1958. 199 pages. Cloth, $6.00. The Changing population of the United States, by Conrad Taeuber and Irene B. Taeuber. January 1958. 368 pages. Cloth, $7.75. Farm Housing, by Glenn H. Beyer and J. Hugh Rose. November 1957. 205 pages. Cloth, $6.00. Residential Finance, 1950, by Richard U. Ratcliff, Daniel B. Rathbun, and Junia H. Honnold. October 1957. 190 pages. Cloth, $6.00. American Housing and Its Use: The Demand for Shelter Space, by Louis Winnick, with the assistance of Ned Shilling. March 1957. 157 pages. Cloth, $5.50. American Families, by Paul C. Glick. February 1957. 254 pages. Cloth, $6.00. Social Characteristics of Urban and Rural Communities, 1950, by Otis Dudley Duncan and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. October 1956. 439 pages. Cloth, $7.50. Immigrants and Their Children, 1850-1950, by E. P. Hutchinson. August 1956. 405 pages. Cloth, $7.50. Income of the American People, by Herman P. Miller. October 1955. 222 pages. CIOtll, $6.50. American Agriculture: Its Structure and Place in the Economy, by Ronald L. Mighell. April 1955. 199 pages. Cloth, $6.50.


Research on Labor Mobility: An Appraisal of Research Findings in the United States, Bulletin 65, by Herbert S. Parnes. October 1954. 216 pages. $1.75. The Social Sciences in Historical Study: A Report of the Committee on Historiography, Bulletin 64. July 1954. 191 pages. Paper, $1.75; cloth, $2.25. Adjustment to Physical Handicap and Illness: A Survey of the Social Psychology of Physique and Disability, Bulletin 55, revised edition, by Roger G. Barker, in collaboration with Beatrice A. Wright, Lee Meyerson, Mollie R. Gonick. April 1953. 456 pages. $2.00. COUNCIL PAMPHLETS: MEMORANDA TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREVENTIVE MEDICINE AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

Effects of Social and Cultural Systems in Reactions to St1'ess, Pamphlet 14, by William Caudill. June 1958. 39 pages. 50 cents. Social Status and Public Health, Pamphlet 13, by Ozzie G. Simmons. May 1958. 39 pages. 50 cents. Pmblems in Intercultural Health Programs, Pamphlet 12, by George M. Foster. April 1958. 54 pages. 50 cents. Special price for the three pamphlets together, $1.00. OTHER COUNCIL PAMPHLETS AND REPORTS Expectations, Uncertainty, and Business Behavior: A Conference Held at Carnegie Institute of Technology, October 27-29, 1955, under the Auspices of the Committee on Business Enterprise Research, edited by Mary Jean Bowman. May 1958. 209 pages. Lithoprinted. $2.00. The Business Enterprise as a Subject for Research, Pamphlet II, by Howard R. Bowen. Sponsored by the Committee on Business Enterprise Research. May 1955. III pages. $1.25.

CROSS-CULTURAL EDUCATION MONOGRAPHS These monographs are sponsored by the Committee on Cross-Cultural Education and are published by the University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: In Search of Identity: The Japanese Overseas Scholar in Ame1'ica and Japan, by John ,,y. Bennett, Herbert 34

Sampling Opinions: An Analysis of Survey Procedures, by Frederick F. Stephan and Philip J. McCarthy. Report on studies initiated under the auspices of the former joint Committee on Measurement of Opinion, Attitudes, and Consumer Wants, appointed by the National Research Council and the Social Science Research Council. New York: John Wiley & Sons, June 1958. 472 pages. Cloth, $12.00. Talent and Society: New Perspectives in the Identification of Talent, by David C. McClelland, Alfred L. Baldwin, Urie Bronfenbrenner, and Fred L. Strodtbeck. Report of the former Committee on Identification of Talent. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand Company, June 1958. 282 pages. Cloth, $3.75. Theory and Methods of Scaling, by Warren S. Torgerson. Prepared for the former Committee on Scaling Theory and Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, September 1958. About 490 pages. Cloth, $9.50.

Passin, and Robert K. McKnight. October 1958. About 420 pages. Cloth, $7.50. No Frontier to Learning: The Mexican Student in the United States, by Ralph L. Beals and Norman D. Humphrey. August 1957. 159 pages. Cloth, $3.25. Indian Students on an American Campus, by Richard D. Lambert and Marvin Bressler. December 1956. 133 pages. Cloth, $3.00. The American Experience of Swedish Students, by Franklin D. Scott. June 1956. 142 pages. Cloth, $3.00. OTHER BOOKS Explorations in Social Psychiatry, edited by Alexander H. Leighton, John A. Clausen, and Robert N. Wilson. New York: Basic Books, December 1957. 462 pages. Cloth, $6.75.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS TO BE OFFERED IN 1958-59 A brochure describing the Council's programs of fellowships and grants for the coming year will be distributed as usual about October 1, and will be mailed to individuals on request addressed to the Social Science Research Council Fellowships and Grants, 230 Park Avenue, New York 17, N. Y. Especial attention is called to the several dosing dates for receipt of applications or nominations under different programs:

International Conference Travel Grants, December 1 (awards to be announced February 2) for the following meetings in 1959: Institut International de Finances Publiques, Europe, summer 1959 Inter-American Society of Psychology congress, Rio de Janeiro, August 1959 International Congress of the History of Science, Barcelona, August- September, 1959 International Economic Association round table (tentative) International Institute of Administrative Sciences, Europe, summer 1959 International Political Science Association round table (tentative) International Sociological Association congress, Perugia, September 8-15, 1959 International Statistical Institute (tentative) International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Vienna, August 28 - September 4, 1959

Research Training Fellowships, January 7, 1959 Fellowships for Completion of Doctoral Dissertations, January 7 Fellowships in Political Theory and Legal Philosophy, January 7 Faculty Research Fellowships, January 7 Grants-in-Aid of Research, and Faculty Research Grants: November 1, 1958 and February 1, 1959 (awards to be announced Janaury 2 and April 1, respectively) Auxiliary Research Awards, October 15, 1958 (see Items, June 1958, page 24) Senior Research Awards in American Governmental Affairs, November 1, 1958 (awards to be announced in January) Grants for Research on American Governmental Processes, November 1 (awal-ds to be announced January 2) Grants for Research on the Near and Middle East, November 1 (awards to be annonnced January 2) Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, November 1 (awards to be announced January 2)

Because the requirements, procedures, and forms differ for the various programs, inquiries should indicate briefly the candidate's age, academic degrees held or sought, country of permanent residence, present position or activity, and the nature of the training, research, or travel for which support is desired. Except as noted above, awards will be annonnced on or before April 1, 1959.



the support of congresses in their respective fields. Any congress devoted to the advancement of fundamental research in the humanities or the social sciences, and involving multinational scholarly representation, is eligible for support. Sponsoring organizations should submit in their applications as much information as possible concerning the size and the program of the proposed congress, including a tentative budget, and an estimate of the support that is expected to be obtained from other sources. Funds granted by the joint committee are to be applied ' to the following expenses: (a) travel grants and per diem to foreign scholars who are to be active participants in the congress; (b) administrative expenses of the organizing committees. Inquiries and applications should be addressed to the administrative officer of the program: Robert Hoopes, Vice President, American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York 17, N. Y.

A grant of $500,000 by the Ford Foundation to be used toward the expenses of holding international scholarly congresses in this country, over a period of at least five years, will be administered by a joint committee of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council, consisting of Frederick Burkhardt, Charles Frankel, John Gardner, Pendleton Herring, and Donald Young. Under the terms of the grant, organizations sponsoring international congresses are expected to secure maximum assistance from other sources so that the program may aid as many scholarly associations as possible, over as long a period as possible. Applications are invited from scholarly humanistic and social science organizations in the United States for











Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1921, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences Directors, 1958:



Officers and Staff:






Executive Associate; DONALD G. Financial Secretary