Page 1





THERE are important gaps in our knowledge of Latin America in all the social sciences, and in some disciplines serious and objective research has just now begun. Each 'f the chapters in Social Science Research on Latin 1merica attempts in part to indicate the possibilities and the needs of a particular discipline. It would be repetitious to describe these possibilities and needs here. Yet, there are research topics and fields which were singled - out repeatedly by the various panels of the • The content of this article is reprinted (with minor changes) by permission of its author and the publisher from the "Introduction," pages 19-29, in Social Science Research on Latin America, edited by Charles Wagley (copyright by Columbia University Press, 1964, and published on November 23; 338 pages, $4.00). The volume presents the papers of the Seminar on Latin American Studies, held by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Research Council, July 8 - August 23, 1963, at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The papers are critical evaluations of the present status of knowledge of Latin America in particular social science disciplines. In the "Intro· duction" the editor provides a framework for these studies of individual disciplines and points out the special needs and opportunities in their concern with Latin America. Mr. Wagley, Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Institute of Latin American Studies, Columbia Uni· versity, is a member of the board of directors of the Social Science Re· search Council and bas been a member of the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies since its appointment in 1959. The core group of participants in the Seminar consisted of Robert N. Burr, University of California, Los Angeles, chairman of the joint committee; Raymond Carr, Oxford University; Joseph Grunwald, and H. Field Haviland, Jr., Brookings Institution; Robert Heussler, Ford Foundation; Frederick A. )lafson, Johns Hopkins University; Carl B. Spaeth, Stanford University; ':;harles Wagley; Bryce Wood, staff for the joint committee. Ralph W. Tyler, Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, served as chairman of the Seminar; and Richard J. Walter, Stanford University, as rapporteur.

Seminar. Some lend themselves to study by several disciplines, while others demand interdisciplinary research. The very fact that these topics and fields of inquiry were mentioned by scholars in various disciplines indicates their high priority in Latin American studies. Without any attempt to establish relative priority or to be exhaustive, some of these areas of research are listed below: 1. Land tenure systems. 2. Power structures at all levels of Latin American societies. 3. The ideology, changing composition, and role of elite groups in individual countries. 4. The dimensions, ideology, and role of the middle sectors of one or more Latin American societies. 5. The role of education in political and economic modernization. 6. The process of decision making in various Latin American contexts. 7. Nationalism in its various forms. 8. The process of political socialization, including the assimilation of Indians and peasants into a dominant national society. 9. New groups, such as Protestant sects, voluntary organizations, and interest groups, which are ap· pearing in Latin American societies. 10. Latin American political parties in one country. 11. Latin American revolutions. 12. Large agricultural establishments such as haci-endas, plantations, and estancias.


13. The rapid process of urbanization and of ruralurban migration. 14. Inflation and the social tensions engendered by it. 15. The "dual" economies of many Latin American nations. 16. The processes at work and the trends in Latin American demographic growth. 17. Latin American national character and national self-images. 18. The economic balance between various sectors of the Latin American economies, for example, industry versus agriculture. The mere listing of such broad fields of inquiry (and many might be added) leads immediately to a number of questions. How is such research to be implemented? What is the most strategic unit of study-the area as a whole, a subarea, a nation, a region within a nation, or a local community? What are the conditions in Latin America which act as barriers against such research? These and many other more specific questions were discussed by the various panels and by the core seminar group, and will require even further study. UNITS OF RESEARCH

An important question for students of Latin America is the appropriate unit or units within which research can be organized and carried out effectively. Obviously, the unit of research depends on the problem to be studied, and the same general problem can often be studied in terms of different units. For example, economic integration could be studied in terms of Latin America as a whole or in terms of the Central American Republics. Likewise, rural-urban migration may be studied as a Pan Latin American phenomenon or in terms of one country or of one metropolitan center and its rural zones. In general, however, many of the Latin American specialists at the panel meetings seemed to agree that the nation was the largest effective unit of research. One participant spoke of "the myth of Latin America." "Each country," he added, "has to be treated in its own right. The region is not homogeneous." Far too often students of Latin America have bitten off more than they could chew. Books on Latin American history, geography, politics, or economics which attempt to encompass Latin America as a whole are apt to be vaguely general and full of qualifications, or else they neglect important countries. Recently, in comparing the problems involved in the study of Latin America and Asia, Dore 1 made this point forcefully, contrasting the tendency of

students of Asia to specialize on one country or one society with the scarcity of such concentration on the part of "Latin Americanists." In the present stage of development, Latin American social science needs descriptive and analytical studies -original research-about individual nations, for example, studies of the history of Colombia since independence, of the process of urbanization in Brazil, of the Peruvian elite, of the Mexican middle class, and of many other aspects of a national society. Furthermore, in the larger countries there is a need for regional and local studies in all the social sciences. Studies like those in the economics of the Brazilian northeast by Robock 2 and Hirschman 8 provide a depth of detail and analysis which make them extremely valuable to all students of Latin America. Stein's history of the community of Vassouras in the Paraiba Valley, Brazil, during the rise of the coffee planters 4 demonstrates the importance of research limited in time and space to the understanding of national history. In the same sense the numerous community studies by sociologists and social anthropologists, although too often focused on Indians or peasants, offer detailed description and analysis of the way of life of limited sectors of Latin American society. They have implications far beyond the local scene. We need more research and analysis of other sectors of Latin American society, such as the study by Whiteford 15 of social stratification in a Mexican and Colombian city, as well as studies of parts of cities, such as that carried out by Pearse 6 in a favela (shantytown) of Rio de Janeiro. We need regional and local studies by political scientists, sociologists, and other social scientists in order really to understand Latin American societies. Such concrete and highly specific research need not be limited to a spatial unit such as a region or a community. Instead, an institution or a nonlocalized corporate group could be the unit for research. A study of one Latin American political party would give us more insight into Latin American political processes than many superficial generalized accounts. Studies are needed along the lines



2 Stefan H. Robock, Brazil's Developing Northeast: A Study of Regional Planning and Foreign Aid, Washington. D.C.: Brookings Insti-

tution, 1963. 8 Albert O. Hirschman. Journeys toward Progress: Studies of Economic Policy-Making in Latin America, New York: Twentieth Century Fund. 1963 . • Stanley J. Stein. VassourllS: A Brazilian County, 1850-1900, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1957. 6 Andrew H. Whiteford. Two Cities of Latin America: A Comparative Description of Social Classes, Beloit. Wisc.: Logan Museum of Anthro: pology. Beloit College. 1960; Anchor Books edition. New York: Doubleday Be Company, 1964. 8 Andrew Pearse. "Some Characteristics of Urbanization in the City of Rio de Janeiro," in Philip M. Hauser, ed., Urbanization in Latin America, Paris: UNESCO, 1961, pages 191-205.

1 Ronald P. Dore, "Some Comparisons of Latin American and Asian Studies with Special Reference to Research on Japan," Items, June 196!1, page Ill.


• •



of that by Cochran and Reina 7 of large-scale Latin American industrial enterprises. Kling's short study of a Mexican interest group 8 indicates a type of research that might be undertaken usefully in various countries and on a variety of interest groups. Latin American studies have suffered for too long from the superficiality evidenced in the traditional area-wide histories, surveys of church and state relations, chronicles of political events throughout the continent, and other generalized accounts. Needed are specific and original studies upon which to build more valid generalizations and frame new hypotheses. This should not be taken to mean that social science studies on Latin America should be entirely empirical, should avoid general theory, and be highly limited in scope. As stated above, certain fields of research, such as voting behavior, population trends, or inflation, demand a national basis. Even so, localized and limited research is needed to help us interpret and evaluate quantitative data and national trends. The sample survey carried out by Stycos et al. 9 in four Peruvian communities, each representing a "type" (capital city, small city, mestizo coastal town, and highland bilingual village), indicates a fruitful approach. In this case the sample surveys were coordinated with analyses of national census data so that they could be interpreted on a nationwide basis. In turn, the surveys helped to interpret the census data. In view of the paucity of nationwide quantitative data, the presence of multiple or dual economies, and the fact that in many countries a large proportion of the people live marginally to modern society, many social scientists will have to depend upon local studies and sample surveys for their data.

perience both before and after independence. They offer a unique opportunity to seek the causal connections among the environmental, historical, and cultural variables. As Dore puts it, Latin America does provide excellent opportunities for the kind of comparative sociology that seeks to arrive at generalizations about causal connections of the type: "X is likely to lead to Y, other things being equal." It is obvious that one has a better chance of arriving at such generalizations with fair confidence if other things are as equal as possible. It is in this respect that Latin America offers a promising field. Its societies do have so many points of similarity that an examination of their differences might yield new information about the way those differences are interrelated. Thus, for instance, Latin America is an excellent place to study, say, the relation between levels of literacy and the political role of labor unions; between the size of the professional middleclass and the strength of liberal democratic parties; between the real extent of racial and cultural differences and the political or social importance attached to such differences; between the type of land tenure and the political involvement of peasants, and so on. Economists have used such methods in a purely statistical way, for instance, in seeking a correlation between inflation and the rate of economic growth; there is still not enough systematic collection of data to enable sociologists or political scientists to use the same technique effectively.ll

Such comparative studies, it would seem, might best be undertaken within certain subregions of Latin America if it is desired that all things be equal to the highest possible degree. For example, the highland countries of Central and South America, with their large Indian populations, offer one such group of nations. Another broad area of relative similarity includes the tropical lowlands of northern Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, and the West Indies, which share a slave plantation, single cash-crop tradition. Still another subregion might be Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, where in different degrees European immigrants have played such an important role. 12 On the other hand, if contrast is sought in framing a research problem, then countries or localities in the different subregions might be selected for study. Another comparative view would be gained through a typology of Latin American nations based on historical and functional criteria. An example is the typology used by Germani in his study of social stratification in Latin America. 18 He points out that Latin American societies range from traditional structures with clearly

COMPARATIVE STUDIES Despite the need for national and local research, Latin America offers an excellent field for internal comparisons. Latin American nations, with their common Iberian tradition and their colonial experience under Spain (except for Brazil), share a basic set of social institutions and even of behavior patterns and values. 10 Yet, as mentioned earlier, the nations differ strikingly from one another-in physical environment, in the composition of their populations, and in their historical ex7 Thomas C. Cochran and Ruben E. Reina, Entrepreneurship in Argentina Culture: Torcuato di Tella and S.I.AM., Philadelphia: Uni-

Dore, ibid., pages 13-14. Cf. Charles Wagley, "Plantation-America: A Culture Sphere," in Vera Rubin, ed., Caribbean Studies: A Symposium, Jamaica, B.W.I.: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University College of the West Indies, 1957, pages 3-13. 18 Gino Germani, PoUtica y sociedad en una epoca de transicion: de la sociedad traditional a la sociedad de masas, Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidos, 1962. 11

versity of Pennsylvania Press, 1962. 8 Merle Kling, A Mexican Interest Group in Action, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1961. 9 J. Mayone Stycos, Allan G. Feldt, and George C. Myers, "The Cornell International Population Program," mimeographed (n.d.). 10 Cf. John Gillin, "Modern Latin American Culture," Social Forces,


25:24l!-248 (1947).


separated strata to industrial ones whose many strata are neither clearly separated nor readily identifiable. Using criteria and indices such as the size of the middle class, the degree of urbanization, the degree of literacy, and the number of university students per 1,000 inhabitants, he sets groups of Latin American nations along a scale ranging from the traditional to the industrial type of stratification. Thus, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Costa Rica are grouped together as those nations which most closely approach the industrial type; Mexico and Brazil come next; and Cuba, Colombia, and Venezuela third; while Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, El Salvador, Bolivia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti have retained to the highest degree their traditional class structure. 14 Such classification of Latin American societies can often be more useful than one by subregion, for the former allows comparisons between countries that are at about the same stage of economic development and social modernization. One might ask, for example, what the similarities or differences are in the form of nationalism in Argentina and Chile, which are roughly in the same stage of modernization, or in Argentina and Peru, which are at opposite ends of the traditional-industrial spectrum. Or one might frame a question as to the similarities and differences between the recent revolutions in Cuba and Bolivia, which are not only in different subregions of Latin America but in different stages of modernization. RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

of the nineteenth-century conflicts among Latin American nations, again with outstanding exceptions such as those by Box 16 and Burr.n Scholars in the United States have left almost untouched the three chief Latin American conflicts of this century, namely, the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay, the dispute over Leticia between Peru and Colombia in 1932, and the Marafion struggle between Ecuador and Peru, which continues today, since Ecuador refuses to accept the "settlement" of 1942. The principal specialized works in this connection are those by Cooper 18 and by Zook. 19 Given this lack of interest in the drama of Latin American conflict and war, it is not surprising that the more homely arts of peace among Latin American nations have been neglected by North American scholars. Bilateral relations between the United States and Latin American countries have, of course, received more attention. The literature on the subject prior to World War II was reviewed by Bemis 20 and updated by Mecham. 21 United States relations with Latin American nations since the tum of the century have been studied by, among others, Munro,22 Whitaker,23 and Wood. 2' Students of U.S. policy toward Latin America have an advantage in the availability of materials for research over those working on the policies of Latin American countries.25 The attempts of the American nations to keep the peace and further their mutual interests through the Organization of American States and through hemispheric treaties are the subject of a large number of 18 Pelham H. Box, The Origins 0/ the Paraguayan War, Urbana: University of Dlinois Press, 1927. IT Robert N. Burr, The Stillborn Panama Congress: Power Politics and Chilean-Colombian Relations during the War 0/ the Pacific, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962. 18 Russell M. Cooper, American Consultation in World Affairs, New York: Macmillan Company, 1934. 10 David H. Zook, Jr., The Conduct 0/ the Chaco War, New York: Bookman Associates, 1960. 20 Samuel F. Bemis, The Latin American Policy 0/ the United States, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1943. 21 J. Lloyd Mecham, The United States and Inter-American Security, 1889-1960, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961. 22 Dana G. Munro, Intervention and Dollar Diplomacy in the Caribbean, 1900-1921, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964. 28 Arthur P. Whitaker, The Western Hemisphere Idea, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1954. 2. Bryce Wood, The Making 0/ the Good Neighbor Policy, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. . 25 The publication of the extensive documents contained in the 50called American Republics volumes through 1942 in the series entitled Foreign Relations 0/ the United States (U.S. Government Printing Office) and the existence of excellent bibliographical tools such as Samuel F. Bemis and G. G. Griffin, Guide to the Diplomatic History of the United States (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1935) provide data not available elsewhere. In addition, publications on the relations of the United States with Latin American republics are reviewed annUally in the Handbook of Latin American Studies (University of Florida Press).

With regard to Latin America as a unit for research, the subject of international relations at once comes to mind. 1s This is an important and much neglected field of social science research. Actually, the study of the relations among American states falls within the scope of several disciplines, notably history, political science, and economics, and it is likely to be neglected by all. It also includes three subfields: relations among the Latin American states themselves; bilateral relations between the United States and the various Latin American republics; and the treaties, institutions, and attitudes that have come to be called the "inter-American system." The diplomatic and military history of Latin American nations has been given little attention by North American scholars. There is a paucity of materials, the archives of Latin American foreign offices are difficult of access, and memoirs of Latin American diplomats are scarce and often unenlightening. There are few studies u. Ibid., pages 148 ff. The author is indebted to Bryce Wood and Robert N. Burr for preparing the basic notes for the following paragraphs on the study of inter-American relations. U


pu blications, most of which consist of official documents of the OAS itself and of the U.S. Government or the Alliance for Progress. There is a new and expanding literature by U.S. scholars on the experience of the OAS since 1948.26 The periodical literature and the government reports on this aspect of inter-American relations are abundant but demand study by scholars. The social science aspects of inter-American relations are in need of development. There is great need for the study of political relations among Latin American nations and of those nations' foreign policies. Their economic relationships since 1946, for example, the politics of the various coffee agreements, are not well understood. Another problem of inter-American relations which is of great current importance and sensitivity is the changing role of U.S. business enterprises in Latin America. Then, there is the question of inter-American security, including the political as well as the military aspects of hemispherical defense. The OAS should be studied as an institution that could exert economic and political pressure on its member states, not just as a legal institution. The study of inter-American relations is an important part of Latin American research. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF RESEARCH IN LATIN AMERICA Finally, something should be said about the advantages and disadvantages of social science research in Latin America. Both the pros and the cons derive from the historical and social characteristics of the area itself. Despite all its Indian and African traditions, Latin America is fundamentally an extension of Europe. The African slaves transported to America were torn from their communities and arrived as an almost societyless group. In countries where there was a dense aboriginal population, the Spanish were able to transform the Indians within a century or so into reasonable replicas of European peasants and to impose upon them Iberian institutions and customs. This was a feat of "directed social and cultural change" on a scale seldom equaled in the modern world. Latin American nations have adopted governmental forms, constitutions, and ideologies borrowed from Europe or the United States. The fact that for over 400 years Latin America has been an offspring of Europe has its advantages and disadvantages. First, it means that the national languages are Spanish, Portuguese, and French, which do not pose as much of an obstacle to research as do some other 28 For example, Ann Van Wynen Thomas and A. J. Thomas, Jr., The Organization of American States, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 19611; Adolf A. Berle, Latin America-Diplomacy and Reality, New York: Harper and Row, 1962; and John C. Dreier, The Organization of American States and the Hemisphere Crisis, New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1962.

languages. Furthermore, it means that the U.S. or European social scientist is studying institutions with which he is already familiar, at least with their normal aspects. Yet this familiarity with the institutions derived from Europe leads to a basic misunderstanding of Latin America. The similarity tends to be formal and superficial. In the 400 years since Europeans settled in the New World, Latin American nations have profoundly modified, adapted, and reinterpreted European customs and institutions. A Latin American constitution may read like its U.S. counterpart, but it does not function in the same way. Latin American courts may follow the formal procedure of French courts, but the outcome is different. Latin American economic systems are formally patterned after Western capitalism, but in reality there are important structural differences and dual economic systems which bedevil economic theorists. The Europeanism of Latin America can be deceptive. One great advantage for social scientists who are doing research in Latin America derives from this European heritage. Despite the large numbers of illiterates in many countries, Latin America has a literate tradition. The educated elite have written about themselves and their countrymen for centuries. Today, there are hundreds of universities and other institutions of higher learning and many specialists in the social sciences. Thus, the U.S. scholar who wishes to do research in Latin America has a backlog of written materials in a European language and the possibility of collaboration with his Latin American colleagues. Each year there is an increase in the output of serious social science studies by Latin Americans and in the quality of cooperative research between U.S. and Latin American scholars. At the same time Latin America suffers from poverty, illiteracy, political instability, inflation, food shortages, lack of educational facilities, and a multitude of other serious social and economic problems. These concerns are reflected in the research and theory of Latin American social scientists, which are focused upon practical immediate political and policy problems. Latin American social scientists are interested almost exclusively in social and economic change. The economists are apt to accuse their North American colleagues of overemphasizing equilibrium rather than economic development; and "a Chilean sociologist has stated: 'Some sociologists in North America seem to think that a society that is changing is destroying itself, but we consider that unless our societies are in process of change, they are destroying themselves.' " 21 The presence of so many urgent social and economic 21 Bryce Wood and Charles Wagley, "The Social Sciences: Parochial or Cosmopolitan? Reflections on the Inter-American Conference on RelCarch and Training in Sociology," Items, December 1961, page 41.

problems in Latin America means that the social sciences are in great demand as useful instruments for change. Social scientists are sought as planners, administrators, politicians, and teachers. But, in tum, this situation has its drawbacks. It means that social science is drawn inevitably into politics, into polemics, and into hasty surveys for immediate use. Social science runs the danger of losing its objectivity. The u.S. scholar who does research in Latin America is not immune to this influence. If he is an intelligent and sensitive person, he

learns to think and feel with his Latin American colleagues. He can share their exhilarating feeling of being useful in a dynamic and rapidly developing society. He • can also feel the pinch of being forced to work on opera- • tional problems in a "ten minutes to midnight" atmosphere. In any case, he will learn that Latin America provides the well-trained and imaginative social scientist with an opportunity to break new ground, both substantively and theoretically, as well as to contribute to the welfare of millions of our neighbors to the south.


working under the aegis of the Council, it can put much more emphasis than others do on education as a field for rigorous inquiry. In a sense, the committee's work may provide standards or models for others. A few of its activities will illustrate this. Stanford University and the committee held a research training conference for young postdoctoral investigators, June 22 - July 31, 1964. We were able to recruit a brilliant group of participants, and a distinguished group of instructors and consultants. (The plans for the conference were reported briefly in Items, December 1963, and the participants and their activities, in the June issue.) The success of the conference, judged by the quality of the discussions and the impact on participants, far exceeded the expectations of the committee. It is therefore arranging a similar conference for 1965 (see page 56 infra) but proposes thereafter to let such conferences be initiated at universities where there is active, relevant interest and research. Brief topical conferences form an increasing part of the committee's program. A subcommittee has planned a conference for the purpose of examining the notion of "learning by discovery." This is being adopted by educators as a slogan even though the rationale and supporting evidence are far from satisfactory. We shall bring in educational innovators using discovery methods, experimental and educational psychologists, and a few others to review what is known and pose questions for research. We suspect that the issue is now wrongly stated, and that this critical symposium will split it into several betterdefined lines for investigation. A similar emphasis on fundamentals pervaded the committee's conference on reading? held in the fall

IN THIS report I have been asked to deal with two broad questions: What special function can the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process have in a field where there is now a good deal of research activity? And what ideas are currently significant and receiving the committee's attention? To approach the first, it is necessary to recall the long separation of academic behavioral scientists from education and teacher training. When, after 1958, psychologists were asked to take a hand in educational reforms and the evaluation of them, it was generally agreed that the existing research findings are difficult to apply, and that there is need for studies more directly related to educational subject matter and in· structional conditions. This committee was formed two years ago with the general charge of stimulating worthwhile studies. The committee has experimented with a variety of techniques, and on the basis of this experience is ready to plan a program extending over two or more further years. A good many forces are now bringing behavioral scientists into closer contact with education; in particular, the new availability of funds for research related to education, and the expectation of academic scholars that psychologists can help them with innovations in teaching their subjects are drawing psychologists (and sociologists) into this field. The activities of the committee, compared with these other activities, have two distinctive characteristics: Having a long time perspective, the committee is concerned with understanding educational processes rather than with changing the schools now; having basically scientific motivations, and • The author is Professor of Education and Psychology at Stanford University, and has been chairman of the Council's Committee on Learning and the Educational Process since its appointment in April 1962. The present paper is his summary of a report presented to the Council's board of directors at its annual meeting in September 1964.

1 Cf. Items, March 1964, pages S-9. See also Evan R. Keislar, "Con· ference on Perceptual and Linguistic Aspects of Reading," Readin, Teacher, October 1964, pages 43-49.





growth. Jan Smedslund, now at the University of Bergen, has apparently produced understanding of such principles as conservation of quantity a year or two before it ordinarily emerges in the child according to Piaget. Several American studies show that learning ability can be increased. It can be argued that these gains in aptitude-whether general or confined to particular types of learning-are the most significant outcomes of instruction in any subject, especially in view of the fragmentary evidence that these gains are permanent whereas gains in knowledge are often transitory. The study of instruction involves complexities that have rarely been touched by learning theory. Educational subject matter is much more complexly organized than the mazes and lists of nonsense syllables of the laboratory, although the experimenters now recognize that there is no "rote" learning since the human subject imposes an organization of his own on the material. In educational material there is a progression from lesson to lesson, whereas in traditional experiments the same stimuli are presented in every trial. In educational material there is or ought to be an internal logic that permits the subject to judge the correctness of his own responses, whereas stimulus-response connections in traditional experiments are deliberately arbitrary. There is some reason to think that this logically directed selfcorrection has much more power to promote learning than the authority-administered "reinforcements" that loom so large in laboratory studies. Educational learning has a history, whereas the laboratory task is most often brief and isolated. Our motivational theories, for example, say what the appeal of a difficult task is to subjects of different personalities. But these theories are based on single laboratory tasks that occupy one hour or less, and say nothing about the impact of difficulty sustained over a semester, or-to broaden the question--of the various possible sequences of difficult and easy tasks, or of sure things and risks, or of nurturance and criticism. The field is looking for new conceptualizations and new strategies. So far, at least, the committee has found no effective way to grapple with these sprawling questions, and is therefore giving attention to separate, more concrete topics. The objective is to find general ways to investigate such complex matters and to generate a community of competent educational investigators.

of 1963. There is a band-wagon movement to reform primary reading with new alphabets, such as the Pitman alphabet imported from England. Meeting with proponents of those methods, we were able to clarify the problems of evaluating the claims put forward. But the linguists and experimental psychologists in the conference plunged much deeper. These new alphabets are haphazard artistic creations that have neither been adequately designed in the light of present knowledge of language and perception nor refined by proper empirical trial. Hence the conference identified questions far more basic than those being raised by reading educators. The committee's field of concern is changing rapidly, and here I can do no more than touch on some of the lines of change. One line has to do with the whole area of aptitude and individual differences. Testers have worked, since the days of Binet and Cattell, within a selection framework. Tests have been used to forecast success and to cull out the unpromising or put them into "slow tracks." Today there is much less concern with picking pupils who fit the school, and much more with fitting the school treatment to the pupil's level and pattern of aptitudes. This calls for new thinking about the relation between instructional techniques and aptitudes, for new tests, and for new school organization. The most radical movement is that toward "computerized" instruction, in which an audiovisual device presents whatever question or explanation the computer program selects for the child, he makes a manual response (perhaps by typewriter), and the computer evaluates the response to determine the next stimulus. We cannot forecast when we shall see these methods in the schools, nor how much of schooling they can accomplish. But even in their present pilot state we see that the old idea of aptitude testing prior to teaching is antiquated; in these devices testing of reading is an integral, continuing part of teaching. Along with these changes is coming a concern for the nature of aptitude. The profession, having reopened the question, is seeing aptitude as a set of techniques, habits, attitudes, or concepts. From this view it follows that aptitude is in principle modifiable, and there is increasing experimental support for this view. A. V. Zaporozhetz of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, Moscow, has reported on Russian experiments with preschool children that seem to accelerate intellectual


COMMITTEE BRIEFS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND ADVANCED EDUCATION (Appointed by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils) Dael WoHle (chairman), M. H. Trytten (vice-chairman), Robert D. Calkins, Allan Cartter, Henry Chauncey, Kenneth Pitzer, Gordon N. Ray, John W. Riley, Jr., Richard Schlatter, Elbridge Sibley, Gordon B. Turner, Frederick T. Wall. John K. Folger has been appointed Director of the Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Education, and plans to take up his duties in Washington, D.C. about February I, 1965. Mr. Folger has been Dean of the Graduate School of Florida State University since 1961. He was a member of the staff of the Human Resources Research Institute, Maxwell Field, Alabama, 1951-58, after which he became a research associate and later Associate Director of the Southern Regional Education Board. The commission is to meet with Mr. Folger in January to review initial plans for its broad study of the nation's needs, resources, and policies affecting scientific and scholarly personnel. Funds to support a three-year undertaking have been provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Russell Sage Foundation.

LEARNING AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS Lee J. Cronbach (chairman), Richard C. Atkinson, Eleanor J. Gibson, Evan R. Keislar, George A. Miller, Lloyd N. Morrisett; staff, Ben Willerman. Stanford University, with the assistance of the committee, will hold a second research training conference on learning and the educational process, June 21 - July 80, 1965, with support provided by the Cooperative Research Program of the U.S. Office of Education. The second conference, like the first, will be directed by Messrs. Cronbach and Atkinson, and has a similar purpose: to examine developments in psychology and other social sciences that have potential significance for the field of education, and educational developments and needs that raise significant questions for research. Emphasis will again be placed on experimental approaches to complex processes in both laboratories and classrooms. Participants will be given opportunity to select and develop problems for their own future research, with the aid of expert consultants. Approximately 35 persons will be invited to participate, and there will be 5 instructors, who will conduct seminars for discussion of the participants' research problems and plans, and of other selected topics. Each instructor and invited consultant will present his current research to the entire group. In addition to Mr. Cronbach the instructors will be Robert Glaser, Professor of Education and Psychology, University of Pittsburgh; Wallace E. Lambert, Associate Professor of Psychology, McGill University; Wal-

ter R. Reitman, Associate Professor of Industrial Adminis- • tration and Psychology, Carnegie Institute of Technology; • and David E. Wiley, Assistant Professor of Education, University of California, Los Angeles. Applicants should have the Ph.D. degree in one of the social sciences or in education, or should have completed major requirements for the degree except for the dissertation. There are no restrictions as to citizenship or country of residence. Inquiries about applications, which must be received by January 17, 1965, should be addressed to Lee J. Cronbach, Cubberley Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305. TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Leon Festinger (chairman), Leonardo Ancona, Jaap Koekebakker, John T. Lanzetta, Serge Moscovici, Ithiel de Sola Pool, Ragner Rommetveit, Stanley Schachter; staff, Ben Willerman. The committee was appointed by the Committee on Problems and Policy in March and held its first meeting in June. As its first activity, it undertook sponsorship of a European conference of experimental social psychologists, to be held at the Villa Falconieri, Frascati, Italy, December 11-15, 1964. At the committee's invitation plans for the conference were developed by a group that arranged a similar conference held by the Council in Sorrento in De- • cember 1968: Mr. Lanzetta (chairman); Mauk Mulder, • Utrecht University; Robert Pages, University of Paris; Henri Tajfel, Oxford University; John Thibaut, University of North Carolina. In addition to members of the committee and staff, the following psychologists are expected to attend the conference: Michael Argyle, Oxford University; Leonard Berkowitz, University of Wisconsin; Ake Bjerstedt, School of Education, Malmo, Sweden; Guido B. Cohen, State University, Groningen; Germaine de Montmollin, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes; Lutfy N. Diab, American University of Beirut; Andre Duflos, University of Paris; Fred E. Emery, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations; Claude Faucheux, University of Paris; Claude Flament, University of Aix-Marseille, Aix-en-Provence; Uriel G. Foa, Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Jerusalem; Nico H. Frijda, University of Amsterdam; Simon N. Herman, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Hilde Himmelweit, London School of Economics and Political Science; Gustavo Iacono, University of Naples; Martin Irle, Wirtschaftshochschule, Mannheim; Joachim Israel, University of Uppsala; Gustav Jahoda, University of Strathclyde; Roger Lambert, University of Paris; Jozef M. Nuttin, University of Louvain; Luigi Petrullo, U.S. Office of Naval Research; Jacob M. Rabbie, Utrecht University; Erling Schild, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Peter Schonbach, Institute for Social Re- • search, Frankfurt am Main; Jan Smedslund, University of ~ Bergen; Vincenzo Spaltro, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan; Laurie Thomas, BruneI College, London.

PERSONNEL more College, Samuel P. Hays of the University of Pittsburgh, and Dell Hymes of the University of California, Berkeley, also have been reappointed. Newly appointed to the committee are Richard Hartshorne of the University of Wisconsin, Gerhard Lenski of the University of North Carolina, and Robert B. MacLeod of Cornell University.



At the annual meeting of the board of directors of the Council in September, Chauncy D. Harris was re-elected a director-at-large for the two-year term 1965-66. John R. Borchert of the University of Minnesota, Lee J. Cronbach of Stanford University, and Ralph H. Turner of the University of California, Los Angeles, were newly elected directors-at-large for that term. The other directors-at-large are Abram Bergson, Thomas S. Kuhn, Don K. Price, and Herbert A. Simon. Herbert A. Simon was elected chairman of the board of directors; Chauncy D. Harris, vice-chairman; William J. Goode, Jr., secretary; and J. Roland Pennock, treasurer. The following members of the board were elected as its Executive Committee: David B. Truman (chairman), Dorwin Cartwright, Morris H. Hansen, George H. Hildebrand, and Thomas S. Kuhn. Wilbert E. Moore of Princeton University was named chairman of the Committee on Problems and Policy; and Harold C. Conklin of Yale University, and R. A. Gordon of the University of California, Berkeley, were re-elected members of the committee. Its other members are Gabriel A. Almond, Leonard Krieger, Gardner Lindzey, and ex officio: Pendleton Herring, Herbert A. Simon, and Chauncy D. Harris.


African Studies. Alan P. Merriam, Indiana University (chairman); L. Gray Cowan, Columbia University; Philip D. Curtin, University of Wisconsin; William O. Jones, Stanford University; Horace Miner, University of Michigan; Roy Sieber, Indiana University; and Benjamin E. Thomas, University of California, Los Angeles, have been reappointed members of the committee for 1964-65. Asian Studies. John A. Pope, Freer Gallery of Art (chairman); Robert I. Crane, Duke University; H. G. Creel, University of Chicago; Paul S. Dull, University of Oregon; L. A. Peter Gosling, University of Michigan; and John L. Landgraf, New York University, have been reappointed to the committee. Contemporary China. John M. H. Lindbeck, Harvard University, has been appointed chairman of the committee for 1964-65. Alexander Eckstein, University of Michigan; John K. Fairbank, Harvard University; Walter Galenson, and Robert A. Scalapino, University of California, Berkeley; G. William Skinner, Cornell University; George E. Taylor, University of Washington; and Mary C. Wright, Yale University, have been reappointed. Foreign Area Fellowship Program. Pendleton Herring (chairman); Schuyler C. Wallace, Foreign Area Fellowship Program (director); Frederick Burkhardt, American Council of Learned Societies; Chauncy D. Harris, University of Chicago; and T. Cuyler Young, Princeton University, have been reappointed to the committee. Latin American Studies. Robert N. Burr, University of California, Los Angeles, has been reappointed chairman of the committee for 1964-65. Also reappointed are Charles W. Anderson, University of Wisconsin; Fred P. Ellison, University of Texas; Joseph Grunwald, Brookings Institution; Allan R. Holmberg, Cornell University; and Charles Wagley, Columbia University. Newly appointed members are David E. Apter, University of California, Berkeley; John P. Augelli, University of Kansas; Orlando Fals Borda, National University of Colombia; and Alex Inkeles, Harvard University. Nem" and Middle East. Herbert H. Paper of the University of Michigan has been named chairman for 1964-65. Charles Issawi of Columbia University and A. J. Meyer of Harvard University have also been reappointed. New members are Robert M. Adams of the University of Chicago, William M. Brinner of the University of California, Berkeley, and Bernard Lewis of the University of London.


Faculty Research Grants. Guy E. Swanson of the University of Michigan (chairman), Bernard Bailyn of Harvard University, Victor Jones of the University of California, Berkeley, Irving B. Kravis of the University of Pennsylvania, Arno J. Mayer of Princeton University, Melford E. Spiro of the University of Chicago, and John Thibaut of the University of North Carolina have been appointed members of this new committee for 1964-65. It will administer the single program of faculty research grants, which replaces the former separate programs of faculty research fellowships and grants-in-aid. Governmental and Legal Processes. Austin Ranney of the University of Wisconsin (chairman), Philip E. Converse of the University of Michigan, Richard F. Fenno, Jr. of the University of Rochester, Samuel P. Huntington of Harvard University, Victor G. Rosenblum of Northwestern University, and John C. Wahlke of the State University of New York at Buffalo have been appointed members of this new committee for 1964-65. The committee succeeds the former Committee on Political Behavior and will administer the Council's continuing program of grants for research on governmental, political, and legal processes. Social Science Personnel. George H. Hildebrand of Cornell University has been reappointed chairman of the committee, which has charge of the Council's research training fellowship program. Charles E. Gilbert of Swarth-


Slavic Studies: Subcommittee on Grants for Slavic and East European Studies. Henry L. Roberts of Columbia Uni. versity (chairman), David T. Cattell of the University of California, Los Angeles, George Gibian of Cornell Uni· versity, and John M. Montias of Yale University have been appointed members of the subcommittee for 1964-65.

is to be concerned with the development of criteria for delineating Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas or other comparable areas, evaluation of regional units suitable for various analytical purposes, stimulation of research on space as a factor in human behavior, and the development of data systems useful for planning purposes. John Useem of Michigan State University has been designated a member of the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, succeeding Thomas C. Cochran. Richard A. Easterlin of the University of Pennsylvania has been appointed a member of the Committee on Economic Growth. George A. Miller of Harvard University and Lloyd N. Morrisett of the Carnegie Corporation of New York have been appointed members of the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process.

OTHER COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Karl A. Fox, Iowa State University (chairman), Brian J. L. Berry, University of Chicago; John Friedmann, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William L. Garrison, Northwestern University; Britton Harris, University of Pennsylvania; and Conrad Taeuber, Bureau of the Census, have been appointed members of a new Committee on Areas for Social and Economic Statistics. The committee

CONTENTS OF ITEMS, VOLUMES 16-18 (I962-64)* Lindzey, Gardner. Genetics and the Social Sciences, 18:29 Mitchell, Rowland L., Jr. On Studying the History of Anthropology: Refiectwns of a Historian, 16:27 Modigliani, Franco. Monetary Policy and the Rate of Eco· nomic Activity: A Project of the Committee on Economic Stability, 18:36 Research on International Organization: Program of a New Committee, 17:31 Rockefeller Foundation Continues Support of Council Fel- • lowships and Grants-in-Aid through Capital Grant, 17:4 • Spengler, Joseph J. Demographic and Economic Trends in the Developing Countries: Report on a Conference Held on October 10-12,1963, 17:43 Taeuber, Irene B. China's Population: An Approach to Research, 18: 13 Useem, John. Notes on the Sociological Study of Language, 17:29 Verba, Sidney. Use of Survey Methods in the Study of Political Modernization: Report of a Conference, 18:6 Wagley, Charles. "Social Science Research on Latin America": Summary of Possibilities and Needs from the Report of the Summer Seminar, 1963,18:49 Wright, Mary C. Sources for Study of Contemporary China: Foreword' to a Forthcoming Research Guide, 17:41

ARTICLES Abramovitz, Moses. Studies of Economic Growth in Industrialized Countries: A New Program of the Committee on Economic Growth, 18:5 Brim, Orville G., Jr. Socialization through the Life Cycle, 18:1 Cochran, Thomas C. An International Economic History Association, 16:40 Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Education Appointed by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, 17: 32 Cronbach, Lee J. The Committee on Learning and the Educational Process, 18:54 Dore, Ronald P. Some Comparisons of Latin American and Asian Studies with Special Reference to Research on Japan, 17: 13 Foreign Area Training Fellowship Program Transferred from the Ford Foundation to Joint Sponsorship by the American Council of Learned Societles and the Social Science Research Council, 16: 1 Galenson, Walter. Committee on the Economy of China: First Report of the Director of Research, 16:29 Herring, Pendleton. Robert Treat Crane 1880-1962, 16:37 - - - . The Social Sciences in Latin America, 16: 13 Hymes, Dell H. On Studying the History of Anthropology, 16:25 Janowitz, Morris. The Military in American Society, 17:45 Kalven, Harry, Jr., and Richard D. Schwartz. Administration of the Law of Torts: The 1961 Summer Research Training Institute on Interrelations of Law and Other Social Institutions, 16:2 Klein, Lawrence R. The Second Summer Conference on an Econometric Model of the United States: Summary Report, 16:37 Kuznets, Simon. "Economic Trends in the Soviet Union": Some Concluding Comments Based on a Conference Sponsored by the Committee on Economic Growth, 17:1

COMMITTEE BRIEFS AND OTHER REPORTS African Studies, 16:10,21; 17:9; 18:10 Agricultural Economics, 16:6 Analysis of Economic Census Data, 16: 16; 17:33 Asian Studies, 16:21; 17:9; 18:25 Auxiliary Research Awards, 16:22 Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Education, 17:32; 18:56 Comparative Developmental Behavior, 17:33 Comparative Politics, 16:6, 30,42; 17:33,47; 18:6 Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, 17:32 Contemporary China, 16: 10,43; 17:21,41; 18: 10, 19 Subcommittee on Research on Chinese Society, 16:6, 16, 31,43; 17:4,34,48; 18:8, 13, 20 Economic Growth, 16:16,44; 17:1,20,34,43; 18:5 Economic Stability, 16:37; 17:35; 18:36 Economy of China, 16:29; 17:48

• An index to the contents of Items, Vols. 1-2 (1947-48) was published in Vol. 3, No.1 (March 1949), pp. 11-12; to Vois. 3-8 (1949-54) in Vol. 8, No.4 (December 1954), pp. 49-51; to Vois. 9-11 (1955-57) in Vol. II, No.4 (December 1957), pp. 54-55; and to Vois. 12-15 (1958-61) in Vol. 15, No.4 (December 1961), pp. 50-51.


• ~


Exchanges with Asian Institutions, 16:16, 31; 17:21 Exchanges with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, 17:5, 12 Faculty Research Fellowships, 16:8, 19, 45; 17:7, 49; 18:23 Foreign Area Fellowship Program, 16: I, 31; 17:23, 38; 18:8, 39 Genetics and Behavior, 17:48; 18:20, 29 Grants-in-Aid, 16:8,20,46; 17:8,50; 18:24 Grants for Research on Governmental Affairs, 16:9,21 Historical Analysis, 16:32 Intellective Processes Research, 16:32; 17:35; 18:20 International Conference Travel Grants, 16:11, 46; 17:11, 23, 38, 50; 18: II, 27, 38 International Congresses in the United States, 18:8 International Organization, 17:31; 18:25 Latin American Studies, 16:10, 14,33; 17:5,10,13,35; 18:10, 26,49 Learning and the Educational Process, 17:49; 18:8, 21, 54, 56 Mathematics in Social Science Research, 16:17,23,48; 17:22, 36, 52; 18:21, 26 National Security Policy Research, 16:9,44; 17:9,36,45 Near and Middle East, 16:11; 17:10; 18:11 Personality Development in Youth, 16:33 Political Behavior, 16:2, 9, 34, 44; 17:8, 9, 50 Political Theory and Legal Philosophy Fellowships, 16:20; 17:8; 18:24 Population Census Monographs, 16:7 Preservation and Use of Economic Data, 16:45 Simulation of Cognitive Processes, 16:7,48; 17:22 Simulation of Psychological and Social Processes, 18:48 Slavic and East European Grants, 16:17,22 Slavic Studies Subcommittee on Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, 17: 11; 18:26 Social Science Personnel, 16:18; 17:6; 18:22 Socialization and Social Structure, 16:17; 18:1,9 Sociolinguistics, 17:29, 52; 18:22 Transnational Social Psychology, 18:56 PERSONNEL APPOINTMENTS Auxiliary Research Awards, 16:22 Committees, 16:34,35; 17:37,51; 18:57,58 Directors of the Council, 16:7, 34; 17:5, 36; 18:9, 57 Faculty Research Fellowships, 16:8, 19, 45; 17:7, 49; 18:23

Foreign Area Fellowships, 17:23, 38; 18:39 Grants-in-Aid, 16:8,20,46; 17:8,50; 18:24 Grants for African Studies, 16: 10, 21; 17:9; 18: 10 Grants for Asian Studies, 16:21; 17:9; 18:25 Grants for Latin American Studies, 16:10; 17:10; 18:10, 26 Grants for Research on American Governmental and Legal Processes, 16:9; 17:8, 50 Grants for Research on Contemporary China, 16:10; 17:21; 18:10 Grants for Research on International Organization, 18:25 Grants for Research on National Security Policy, 16:9; 17:9 Grants for Research on the Near and Middle East, 16: 11; 17:10; 18:11 Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, 16:22; 17:11; 18:26 International Conference Travel Grants, 16: 11, 46; 17: 11, 23,38,50; 18:11, 27, 38 Officers and Staff of the Council, 16:34; 17:36, 37; 18:57 Political Theory and Legal Philosophy Fellowships, 16:20; 17:8; 18:24 Research Training Fellowships, 16: 18; 17:6; 18:22 Senior Awards for Research on Governmental Affairs, 16:9, 21; 17:9 Summer Research Training Institutes, 16:23; 17:22; 18:26 ANNOUNCEMENTS Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Education, 17:32 Exchanges with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, 17:12 Fellowships and Grants, 16:36; 17:40; 18:48 Foreign Area Training Fellowship Program Transferred, 16:1 Grants under the Fulbright-Hays Act, 16:12, 24; 17:28 Grants for Intensive Study of Computer Simulation Programs, 18:48 Research on International Organization, 17:31 Research Seminar on Sociolinguistics, 17:52 Rockefeller Foundation Capital Grant, 17:4 Summer Research Training Institutes, 16:48; 17:52 PUBLICATIONS Books, 16:24, 35,47; 17:28, 39, 51; 18:12,46, 59 Council Series, 16:24, 35, 47

PUBLICATIONS The Acquisition of Language, edited by Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol 29, No.1 (Senal No. 92), June 1964. Sponsored by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Lafayette, Indiana: Child Development Publications. 191 pages. $3.50.

Bureaucracy and Political Development, edited by Joseph LaPalombara. Studies in Political Development 2, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, August 1963. 501 pages. $8.50. Communications and Political Development, edited by Lucian W. Pye. Studies in Political Development I, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. PrInceton: Princeton University Press, April 1963. 395 pages. $6.50. Concentration in the Manufacturing Industries of the United States: A Midcentury Report, by Ralph L. Nelson. Economic Census Studies 2, sponsored by the former Committee on Analysis of Economic Census Data. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. 302 pages. $7.50. Continuity and Change in Latin America, edited by John J. Johnson. Product of the conference held by the Joint

Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States, by Claire Selltiz, June R. Christ, Joan Havel, and Stuart W. Cook. Sponsored by the former Committee on Cross-Cultural Education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, May 1963. 448 pages. $9.00. Basic Cognitive Processes in Children, edited by John C. Wright and Jerome Kagan. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 28, No.2 (Serial No. 86), 1963. Sponsored by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Lafayette, Indiana: Child Development Publications. 196 pages. $5.50. 59

Problems in Measuring Change, edited by Chester W. Harris. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the former Committee on Personality Development in Youth. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, October 1963. 269 pages. $7.50.

Committee on Latin American Studies, January 30 - February 2, 1963. Stanford: Stanford University Press, September 1964. 295 pages. $6.75. Economic Transition in Africa, edited by Melville J. Herskovits and Mitchell Harwitz. Based on papers prepared for the conference on the economies of Sub-Saharan Africa, November 16-18, 1961, sponsored by the Committee on Economic Growth. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, August 1964. 462 pages. $7.95.


Scientists and National Policy Making, edited by Robert Gilpin and Christopher Wright. Product of a conference, October 4-5,1962, sponsored by the former Committee on National Security Policy Research and the Columbia University Council for Atomic Age Studies. New York: ColumbIa University Press, February 1964. 316 pages. $7.50.

Economic Trends in the Soviet Union, edited by Abram Bergson and Simon Kuznets. Outgrowth of a conference, May 6-8, 1961, sp,onsored by the Committee on Economic Growth. Cambndge: Harvard University Press, February 1963.406 pages. $9.75.

Studying Politics A broad: Field Research in the Developing Areas, by Robert E. Ward, with Frank Bonilla, James S. Coleman, Herbert H. Hyman, Lucian W. Pye, and Myron Weiner. Sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, August 1964.254 pages. $2.50.

The Education of Sociologists in the United States, by Elbridge Sibley. A study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation at the suggestion of the American Sociological Association, for which the author was granted partial leave from the Council. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, December 1963. 218 pages. $3.50.

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educatzonal Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain, by David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia. Prepared with the aid of the former Committee on Personality Development in Youth. New York: David McKay Company, June 1964.210 pages. $2.50.

Generalization in the Writing of History, edited by Louis Gottschalk. Report of the former Committee on Historical Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, January 1963. 268 pages. $5.00.

"Transcultural Studies in Cognition," edited by A. Kimball Romney and Roy G. D'Andrade, American Anthropologist (Special Publication), Vol. 66, No.3, Part 2, June 1964. Report of a conference held by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. 253 pages. $2.75.

New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, edited by Robert L. Peabody and Nelson W. Polsby. Prepared with the aid of the former Committee on Political Behavior. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, November 1963. 392 pages. Cloth, $6.50; paper, $3.50.

U. S. Census of Population: 1960, Occupation by Earnings and Education, by Herman P. Miller. Bureau of the Census, Subject Reports, Final Report PC(2)-7B. Prepared • primarily for use in a monograph under the program 01 • the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. WashIngton, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963. 318 pages. $2.00.

Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, edited by Robert E. Ward and Dankwart A. Rustow. Studies in Political Development 3, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, May 1964. 510 pages. $8.75. The Political Systems of Empires, by S. N. Eisenstadt. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on Comparative Politics. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, June 1963. 543 pages. $15.00.

U. S. Census of Population: 1960, Type of Place: Demographic, Social, and Economic Data for States, by UrbanRural and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence, by Irene B. Taeuber. Bureau of the Census, Selected Area Reports, Final Report PC(3)-IE. Prepared for use in a monograph under the program of the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, August 1964. 481 pages. $3.75.

Population Mobility within the United States, by Henry S. Shryock, Jr. Initiated under the program of the former Committee on Census MonograpIis. Chicago: University of Chicago Community and Family Study Center, 1964. 480 pages. $5.50.








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








Officers and Staff: ISBELL, ROWLAND






Executive Associate;

L. MITCHELL, JR., BEN WILLERMAN, Staff Associates; CATHERINE V. RONNAN, Financial Secretary



Items Vol. 18 No. 4 (1964)  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you