Page 1




A MAJOR survey and appraisal of the social and behavioral sciences is currently being planned and organized by a committee under the joint auspices of the Social Science Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. The survey will comprise reviews of recent developments, assessment of the current "state of the art," and estimates of the needs and opportunities likely to arise in the several behavioral and social sciences. It is being undertaken in response to the widespread and increased interest in these sciences on the part of government agencies, the Congress, a number of influential natural scientists, and others concerned with national policy for science. Similar surveys have been completed for physics, chemistry, astronomy, the plant sciences, and computer technology, all under the aegis of the National Academy's Committee on Science and Public Policy, which is also the sponsoring body within the Academy for the present study. The purpose of the survey of the behavioral and social sciences, as of the others in this series, is to provide a basis for an informed and effective national policy for strengthening and developing these fields. The survey will provide an inventory of gaps as well as strengths, will point to special areas or topics that are exceptionally promising or in need of special attention, and will be a useful source of information and explanation of the nature and character of these sciences for educators, government administrators, Congressmen, and interested laymen. The survey will not be limited to pure science and basic research. It will clarify the interrelations of basic and applied research, especially in connection with action programs, and indicate both how these sciences might be used in resolving social concerns and

some of the limitations in their use, given the present state of knowledge. The behavioral and social sciences survey will include virtually all the disciplines that are covered by this rubric, but will give major emphasis to anthropology, economics, history, political science, psychology, and sociology. Somewhat more compact treatments of geography, linguistics, and psychiatry will reflect the partial inclusion of these disciplines in the natural sciences and the humanities. Another survey just launched under sponsorship of the Committee on Science and Public Policy will cover the life sciences. It will have a close connection with the behavioral and social sciences survey in the areas of behavioral biology, comparative and physiological psychology, behavioral genetics, and experimental psychology. Coordination and constructive overlap will be secured through liaison between the two surveys. Responsibility for the planning and execution of the study is in the hands of a central planning committee whose chairman is Ernest R. Hilgard, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, and vice-chairman, Henry W. Riecken. Although the membership of the committee is still incomplete, the following have agreed to serve as members and co-chairmen of panels in the respective disciplines: Sherwood L. Washburn, University of California, Berkeley, and Allan H. Smith, Washington State University, anthropology; Carl Kaysen, Institute for Advanced Study, and Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, economics; David S. Landes, Harvard University (and another to be appointed), history; Harvey C. Mansfield, Columbia University, and Warren E. Miller, University of Michigan, political science; Kenneth E. Clark, Uni45

versity of Rochester, and George A. Miller, Harvard University, psychology; and William H. Sewell, University of Wisconsin, and Otis Dudley Duncan, University of Michigan, sociology. The member-at-large for linguistics is Charles A. Ferguson, Center for Applied Linguistics; for psychiatry, David A. Hamburg, Stanford University; and for statistics, William H. Kruskal, University of Chicago. A member-at-large for geography will be named. Fred Eggan, University of Chicago, and Carl Pfaffmann, Rockefeller University, as liaison representatives of the Committee on Science and Public Policy, will also serve on the central planning committee. The several panel chairmen and members-at-large will organize subpanels of specialists for each discipline, adding task forces and individual consultants as needed for the preparation of a report for the discipline. The over-all report, to be edited by the chairman and vicechairman of the central planning committee, will attempt to synthesize the individual reports and to show the connections and continuities among the various components of the social and behavioral sciences. Where fields have developed in distinct and separate ways, that fact will be recognized and no attempt made to impose an artificial order upon a genuine diversity. At the same time, genuine interdisciplinary work and promising

interconnections will be given more than cursory attention. The report will include information on manpower in research and training, the financing of research and teaching in social and behavioral sciences, levels of research activity, equipment, facilities and space (both actually used and forecasts of needs), and other matters. Some of this information may be centrally available, especially from government agencies and previous surveys, while other data will have to be collected directly from university departments in each of the disciplines. A central office, with Stephen Viederman as executive officer, will be established in Washington, D.C. for the purpose of coordinating the work of the disciplinary panels and carrying out certain tasks of data collection. Support for the survey has been obtained from the Russell Sage Foundation, and is being sought from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. During the winter and spring of 1967 disciplinary panels will begin their work, which is expected to continue into mid 1968. It is hoped that by autumn of 1969 the survey report will have been reviewed by the appropriate committees of the Social Science Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council and will have been approved for printing and distribution.

COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY by John Useem and Allen D. GrimshawThe authors of the following article are representative of a growing number of American sociologists who have turned from studying only the contemporary scene in their own society or other particular societies, to comparative studies of social structures and processes of social change. In this endeavor they recognize that the concepts, theories, and methods developed during decades of preoccupation with American society are not automatically applicable. Responding to the need for systematic attention to the problems encountered in comparative research, the Council's Committee on Problems and Policy has authorized the appointment of a new committee, whose composition and initial program of activities are expected to be reported in an early issue of Items. NOTE:

A CHARACTERISTIC of the social sciences in our times is the ever-growing interest of American scholars in comparative studies across cultures, nations, and societies. • John Useem is Professor of Sociology at Michigan State University and a member of the board of directors of the Social Science Research Council; Allen D. Grimshaw is Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of the Institute for Comparative Sociology at Indiana University. At the annual meeting of the Council in September they led a discussion of the subject treated here.


For the purpose of this introduction to intersocietal research in American sociology today, we note only the more salient and common features. Most studies concern large-scale, complex societies, or segments thereof, and in all of them data from two or more societies are compared. In a sizable number the United States is one of the research sites, and either existing sociological findings about American life are drawn on or the data needed for comparisons are obtained in new investigations. The data from foreign societies are usually newly collected by Americans working alone or in cooperation with colleagues who are members of the selected societies. Comparative studies do not necessarily differ from other sociological research in the defining of a scientific problem, nor do they always imply a special type of theory and a unique set of variables. They are characterized by the point of view which the individual brings to bear on his problems, theories, and variables in his work across cultures. The immediate aims of comparative sociology are twofold: to explore the nature and range of a particular set of phenomena in order to VOLUME




generate concepts, categories, indicators, and propositions which may be useful in future transsocietal studies; and to test sociological hypotheses derived from one society in others, in order to develop generalizations which may ideally approximate universal validity. Although the approach to comparative studies differs in each social science, unprecedented opportunities and corresponding problems have been encountered in all disciplines. Indicative of the pervasive issues that have come to the fore are the current discussions concerning the appropriate functions of American social scientists in foreign countries, the consequences of the international migration of scientific talent to America for social science communities in other countries, and the development of collaborative relationships between American scholars and their counterparts around the world. In diverse endeavors over the last two decades attempts have been made, with mixed results, to improve the quality and increase the amount of data available for comparative analyses of different societies, to expand the number of foreign languages in which American students may be trained, to organize areacentered academic programs which might complement disciplinary training in social science, to provide support to enable American scholars to extend their research to all parts of the world, to educate foreign graduate students, and to increase research opportunities available to foreign scholars. While social scientists in all fields have evinced a growing interest in cross-cultural research and an increasing awareness of the complicated issues involved, the magnitude and speed of response and the nature of the ensuing problems vary from discipline to discipline. For instance, sociologists have been slower to participate and less extensively involved than political scientists. Fourteen years ago, the Council sponsored an interuniversity summer research seminar on comparative politics, reports on which were published in the American Political Science Review and in Items. 1 This influenced the work of the Council's Committee on Political Behavior and eventuated in 1954 in appointment of the Committee on Comparative Politics. This committee's first concern was with stimulating comparative studies that would increase understanding of political processes in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.2 In 1963 the Council considered the future of cross-cultural and 1 Roy C. Macridis, "Comparative Politics: Method and Research," Items, December 1952, pp. 45-49; Macridis and Richard Cox, "Research in Comparative Politics," American Political Science Review, September 1953, pp. 641-657. 2 See George M. Kahin, Guy J. Pauker, and Lucian W. Pye, "Comparative Politics of Non-Western Countries," ibid., December 1955, pp. 1022-1049; and Gabriel A. Almond, "A Comparative Study of Interest Groups and the Political Process," ibid., March 1958, pp. 270-282.



cross-national research in connection with questions of training needs and resources required to foster new lines of investigation. The active role taken by sociologists in that discussion reflected the developing interest in sociological circles, but this could not be supported by citations of substantial research accomplishments. That same year saw publication of the first volume in the series of "Studies in Political Development," sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Perhaps a limited resume of the historical development of American sociology in relation to American society can put the current transition in perspective. The first generation of American sociologists exhibited substantial interest in the comparative study of societies, amply manifested in the work of William Graham Sumner, W. I. Thomas, E. A. Ross, and Robert E. Park. Some early sociologists assembled masses of ethnographic data from which they tried to derive general sociological principles; others traveled widely on several continents to observe the varieties of social life; and nearly all were convinced of the importance of developing concepts or general theories which could transcend any particular society and which might guide following generations in their research on a world-encompassing scale. However, between roughly the 1930's and the 1950's, these concerns seemed marginal to the younger American sociologists who were focusing attention mainly on tIie analysis of specific parts of American society. A converging set of scientific and national circumstances precipitated this restriction of interests. The emergence of cultural relativity as a useful scheme for differentiating societies and the eclipse of the evolutionary model for the comparison of total societies engendered a theoretical reorientation to the study of society. This pronounced shift reinforced a growing conviction that the first task in building a "genuine" science of society is to derive operationally manageable concepts and instruments. In view of the modest resources available for sociological research, this could be achieved most readily by the use of nearby research sites. In addition, the demand for sociological findings on the rapidly changing American scene by increasing numbers of educated Americans and, to some extent, by those responsible for decision making in various public and private organizations further reinforced this concern with the domestic scene. Whereas early writers of textbooks in American sociology tried to piece together scattered fragments of information to offer a world view of social life, later authors tend to cover this topic in an opening chapter which juxtaposes modem America and a primitive tribe to show the intersocietal contrasts in mankind, and


thereafter make scanty use of cross-cultural comparisons. A high proportion of contemporary American sociologists were educated as undergraduates, professionally trained as graduate students, and subsequently reached professional maturity during a period in which the discipline was "culture-bound." Although a few American sociologists made studies of other societies during this period, their findings seemed peripheral to the central themes of American sociology. Only now are these delimited studies being rediscovered and integrated into the discipline. Even though the predominant concerns of sociology in this period were deeply involved in one societal and cultural context, the discipline consistently retained its traditional definition of its underlying objective-discovery of the uniformities in social behavior and social structures. The tacit assumption that most sociological research could be pursued effectively without necessarily going beyond American society prevailed until recent years; often it was uncritically assumed that if someone wanted to refine and apply the generalizations about social life that had been drawn from Americanbased studies, he could accomplish this by simply transferring established concepts and technical procedures to foreign countries. The standard treatises on sociological methods remained silent on the design and conduct of comparative studies of societies. Current initiatives and resources for the sociological study of other societies stem mainly from a complex of American organizations and programs that came into being with the "internationalizing" of American society. The demand for knowledge and understanding of foreign societies permeates all the groups with which the sociological profession is linked-students, colleagues in other sciences, administrators of binational endeavors, and world-minded citizens. In contrast, the nascent engagement of American sociologists in comparative studies of societies stems primarily from the individual experiences and the newer intellectual concerns of a small but expanding number within the discipline. Despite the occasional lack of perfect correspondence between the expectations of the two sides of this relationship (e.g., with respect to how much time is required to carry out an effective study, on which foreign countries there should be concentration, or what constitutes a proper balance between basic and applied research), there have been ample overlap of discrete objectives and sufficient pragmatic accommodation by each side to sustain the developing of crosscultural sociological research. Cultural exchange programs, interuniversity contracts, technical assistance endeavors, the Peace Corps, projects sponsored by foundations, and grants for research to advanced gradu48

ate students and scholars have stimulated and enabled some sociologists to make a first study and have encouraged others to consider this possibility. The pathways which might lead a sizable number of new recruits to sociology into comparative work, and the networks that might assure meaningful communication among those with mutual interests are not extensive. Only recently have graduate departments of sociology begun to introduce professional training in comparative research. Inherent in any new scholarly venture is a combination of surprises, challenging discoveries, improvisations in the carrying out of original research designs, and a growing awareness that the next context of research will pose issues and dilemmas that seldom can be envisioned at the outset. A critical appraisal of recent work in comparative sociology evokes the over-all impression of many preliminary studies which display ingenious craftsmanship along with pervasive flaws. Perhaps both are attributable to the same circumstances. Most American sociologists at work in foreign countries are there for the first time and, like other groups of Americans who are similarly on a first work assignment overseas, are ready to be venturesome in the performance of their role. Because the comparative study of societies across cultures is new to modern sociology, most American sociologists undertaking it are self-conscious members of a "first generation" which is dealing with new problems and must discover suitable research methods. 3 The products of these novel efforts usually prove highly suggestive, although sometimes the findings are arresting but less than entirely convincing, and these first-of-their-kind studies do indicate that American sociology has found a new outlook on the world. Recent sociological interest in intersocietal studies has had two direct consequences. The first is a reassessment of the cumulated fund of knowledge about different aspects of American life. A small but increasing number of American sociologists with foreign research experience are searching for new ways to interpret the conventional findings about American patterns, and some are exploring new lines of investigation within the United States. To study tradition and modernity in developing countries encourages the investigator to ask fresh questions about their relevance in the development of American society. To observe the discrepancies 3 Even those who have revived questions that early sociologists explored must now examine them in vastly different contexts. They must take into account such factors as the organizing of new societies out of old colonial territories, the widespread inception of mass cultures and the thrust of urbanization. the rapid pace of technological and economic changes. and changes in the status of interdependency among societies.





between attitudes and behavior in a non-American setting suggests to the observer that little is known about this interrelationship even for such a widely sampled society as our own. The second and more basic impact of comparative studies is the mounting recognition that we must reconsider many of our basic concepts. As sociologists broaden the materials with which they are dealing, they must re-examine some definitions that have been taken as given (e.g., society, culture, bureaucracy, stratification, authority, community, kinship, family, self), either explicitly stating the assumptions under which they hold or transforming the concepts into "generic" terms and denoting their present definitions as but a restricted use under specified conditions, or both. Distinguishing culturally specific facets from generic concepts will continue to be one of the major tasks and contributions of comparative sociology over the next few years. 1966 SUMMER SEMINAR AT INDIANA UNIVERSITY The establishment of the Midwestern Universities Consortium on International Activities in 1964 (through a grant from the Ford Foundation to four institutions extensively involved in overseas educational programs-the University of Illinois, Indiana University, Michigan State University, and the University of Wisconsin) provided opportunity to develop cooperative relations among scholars with cross-cultural interests. Sociologists at these universities had been conferring informally on the general neglect of comparative studies in the discipline. They had noted the continuing increase within each of their departments of scholars interested in cross-cultural research, and observed the conspicuous lack of basic sociological knowledge which could help guide those responsible for policy making and administration in international programs. Representatives of these departments formulated a long-range plan to strengthen their efforts and obtained from the Consortium support for a summer seminar on the methodological problems of comparative studies in sociology. The seminar was held at Indiana University, June 20-August 10, 1966. The main objectives set by the seminar were: to discover mutual concerns within sociology rather than to reach consensus; to identify critical methodological issues rather than to concentrate on substantive subjects; and to exchange ideas rather than to produce a volume. Ten sociologists and 10 graduate students who had chosen comparative sociology as their major field met for eight weeks; nine sociologists from various universities were invited as visiting participants. An anthroDECEMBER


pologist, a psychologist, and a political scientist were similarly invited because in their field work they had encountered specific methodological problems which converged with those of sociologists. Regular faculty and student members of the seminar wrote and presented papers dealing with their current work and future research plans, and papers especially prepared by visiting participants were available. Altogether, about 60 research papers were reviewed by the seminar. Meetings held toward the end of the summer enabled the seminar members to assess their experience and to consult several visitors as to what might be done in future seminars. A problem which seems to plague most sociologists who undertake comparative work is that of phenomenal identity versus conceptual equivalence. This occurs not only in the design and construction of scales, survey questionnaires, and other instruments, but also in the very definition of independent and dependent variables. Identical empirical rates of employee turnover, for example, may represent quite different degrees of worker morale or industrial efficiency in various cultural contexts. This problem is complicated by the necessity of making a fundamental decision as to whether the environing culture is to be considered a variable, a control, or is to be excluded. Those who wished to include it had found few guidelines on how this can be meaningfully done. Our survey of sociologists at work on comparative studies revealed that adventitious circumstances rather than rational criteria growing out of a scientific problem are typically the bases for selection of foreign societies for study. Often an investigator's "choice" of a set of research sites consists simply of taking advantage of a disconnected series of opportunities, after which he tries to integrate disparate field studies into a coherent theoretical scheme. As a result, long-range, consistent, and cumulative studies which deal with the same variables are uncommon. The organization of research programs around area research centers and the correlative development of the area specialist may offset part of the aforementioned shortcomings, but at a high cost to the comparative sociologist in certain other respects. The commitment to a specific country or group of closely related countries carries the risk of transforming a sociologist's theoretical frame of reference from genuinely comparative studies to the particularistic study of one society or culture. He is thereby susceptible to losing sight of the primary function of comparative research, and his work thereafter may not differ in being "culture-bound" from the work of those who concentrate exclusively on American society. To move from a domestic parochialism to one 49

of a foreign variety would be of dubious advantage to sociology. Further, the combination of one man's area-centered and disciplinary interests frequently imposes burdens in regard to participation in professional meetings, the choice of papers to be sent to particular journals, and the discovery of channels that might enable him to communicate and exchange ideas and information with others doing similar research around the world. Tlie organization within the universities of international research in terms of regional areas poses crucial and, as yet, unresolved dilemmas for sociologists -and no less for those governmental and private foundations that support the cross-cultural work of sociologists. The discussions at the seminar disclosed concern on the part of many with the current preoccupation of American sociologists with the developing countries of the non-Western world. This focus signifies another form of parochialism insofar as it excludes comparative studies of Europe and of American society itself from the sociological universe. Work with "near" cultures permits refinements in research design and a heightened comparability not always possible when work is restricted to Asian, African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American societies. Too restricted delineation of what is to be compared may well generate a new set of problems. ILLUSTRATIONS OF VARIOUS APPROACHES The range of sociological problems discussed at the seminar may be indicated by a sketch of the substantive topics: In a paper on the methodology of comparative analysis Neil J. Smelser examined methodological problems directly, without regard to context except for illustrative purposes. Other members of the seminar faculty and visiting participants used a particular dimension of comparative study to explicate the methodological problems in cross-cultural research. Although injustice is done to the richness of the presentations, the approaches of the participants can be roughly grouped as follows: A. The total societies approach was represented in papers by S. N. Eisenstadt, Reinhard Bendix, Austin T. Turk, Joseph R. Gusfield, and Richard N. Adams. For these five, delineation of the unique cultural context of total societies is crucial for analyzing the dynamics of complex societies. However, the major social relationships between a larger collectivity and its parts are thought to be neither "culture-bound" nor "timebound," and can be utilized for understanding present and emerging societal aggregations. 50

B. The dependent variable approach was illustrated by Marvin E. Olsen's proposal for a study of social foundations of democracy and H. Y. Tien's paper on the sociology of fertility change. Each took a particular dependent variable and tried to explain the empirical value it has in each of many societies (defined roughly as nation-states) by specifying the relationship of the dependent variable to series of statistics (e.g., measures of literacy, income, education) characterizing the various societies. Typologies of societies can be determined by this method and predictions made by stating the circumstances in which a particular value of the dependent variable is likely to be found. C. The "narrow entering wedge" approach was represented by Allen Grimshaw's Poona disaster study; Irving M. Zeitlin's study of national differences in the "final solution" of Jews; Samuel J. Eldersveld's comparative analysis of citizens' perceptions of administration in Detroit and Delhi; and Richard D. Lambert's Poona factory studies. A particular event, process, or occurrence (e.g., disaster) was taken by these scholars as the focus about which relevant data were gathered to illuminate more complex phenomena (e.g., bureaucratic organization). The sociological problem is not explanation of the entering wedge per se, but rather comparison across societies of the structural and cultural factors related to the cutting edge. D. Testing a concept of prime interest was the approach explored by A. O. Haller in a social psychological analysis of values, by William Form with skill level in the automotive industry as the crucial concept, and by John P. Clark in study of the social control of juveniles in Japan. Each is trying to establish the universality of a concept that is both culture-free and an index of some aspect of large-scale social organization. Cultural dimensions of the research sites are irrelevant to the analysis but highly relevant to establishing phenomenal, conceptual, or logical equivalents for comparison, constructing instruments, training interviewers, translating terms, etc. Many of these same problems plague all scholars involved in cross-cultural research, but are compounded for this group that is trying to hold cultural factors constant. E. The experimental model approach was illustrated in papers by Leonard W. Doob, Murray A. Straus, and Fred L. Strodtbeck. All three had taken measurements on an experimental and a control group before and after the former was subjected to standardized experimental treatment. These investigators are trying to establish empirically the existence of panhuman processes and patterns on the individual and small-group level, no matter how simple or complex the cultural context. They do not assume that the differences in VOLUME




their experimentally derived data are indices of cultural differences; rather, such relationships are to be empirically derived from replicated experiments. F. The "third culture" approach, which is centered on intersocietal systems and behavior, was represented in papers by John Useem, on work patterns of Americans in India, and by Ruth Hill Useem, on the American family in India. They are concerned not with nation-state societies bu t with the patterning and structuring of the network of relationships generic to the intersections of societies or segments of societiesroughly defined as the third culture. Theories, methods, and data are so primitive for the study of the complex "global society" that their approaches are more eclectic and less neatly defined than most. TYPES OF DATA ANALYZED BY SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS Not only do these approaches vary but also, and in part as consequence, the nature of the data analyzed by seminar participants varies. The range is similar to that found in sociological studies of American life: already recorded qualitative data; newly collected qualitative data obtained through participant observation, questioning of key informants, and open-ended questioning of selected samples; quantitative data assembled by others (demographic and census materials, aggregated statistics); and quantitative data collected by the investigator using standardized instruments. General questions were raised as to the reliability, validity, representativeness, authenticity, and other characteristics of all these data. To be sure, the same questions are raised about data in studies made within our own society, but there are some special aspects when studies span two or more societies. In quantified or quantifiable data, problems of equivalency in both the instruments and responses make questionable the use of measures of central tendency, dispersion, correlation, analysis of variance, etc. For example, can proportions (such as percentage married, illiterate, or employed) be compared if the magnitude of total populations on which they are based are so different that it is tantamount to a qualitative difference in social organization (societies of 8 million, 80 million, and 480 million people)? Whereas the investigator may have some idea of the quality of data collected by others in his own society



and can make adjustments for limitations, to what extent can he rely on data from other societies, which may reflect "image management" rather than reality? Evaluation of data collected by instruments separable from the investigator precipitates problems, but this is compounded when he is the instrument (as in participant observation or analysis of literature), or is part of the instrument (as in open-ended questioning). For many societies of the world we lack literature, research findings, and facts against which to interpret new data or even to use as a basis for drawing samples. SUMMARY Our central thesis is that the very nature of the sociological enterprise requires a comparative base against which all sociological propositions ultimately must be tested. In comparative sociological studies we confront many old issues in new societal contexts. Equally important, cross-cultural studies, as limited as they are, already are having implications for the study of American society. We are becoming aware of assumptions we did not know we were making and observing phenomena within our society which eluded our attention in the past. Intellectual ties between American and European sociologists are long-established, and relationships between American sociologists and their counterparts in other areas are becoming more frequent. But a major task before us is the creation of a world-wide community of sociologists. Until that is accomplished, comparative sociology will be hampered. Perhaps all that we may reasonably hope for in the final third of this century is a beginning-and the signs of that are very much in evidence. It would be pretentious to rank order the priorities for achieving the intended purposes of comparative sociology but, in addition to the development of methodology, any listing would encompass: improved intellectual communication among individual scholars engaged in these endeavors; strengthening of cooperative research by scholars in different societies; and training a new generation of sociologists to be more effectively prepared for comparative research than the present generation. In these and related tasks, the Social Science Research Council can perform once more a significant role in assisting American sociologists.


COMMITTEE BRIEFS CONTEMPORARY CHINA: SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ON CHINESE SOCIETY G. William Skinner (chairman), Maurice Freedman, Morton H. Fried, Irene B. Taeuber; staff, Bryce Wood A conference on research on "Kinship in Chinese Society" was held under the auspices of the subcommittee at Greyston House, Riverdale, New York, September 15-18, 1966. The conference was organized and chaired by Mr. Freedman. Participants other than authors of papers and members of the subcommittee and staff included Baruch Boxer, Michigan State University; Kwang-chih Chang, and Floyd G. Lounsbury, Yale University; Albert Feuerwerker, University of Michigan; and Barbara E. Ward, University of London. The following papers were discussed: "Family, Kin, and Demographic Process: Farm Operator Households, China, 1929-1931," by Mrs. Taeuber; "Family, Lineage, and Settlement Pattern in Taiwan," by Shao-hsing Chen, National Taiwan University; "The Chinese Genealogy as a Source for the Historian and Social Scientist," by Johanna M. Meskill, Vassar College; "Chinese Child Training: Another Perspective on the Family," by Margery Wolf, Ithaca, New York; "A Preliminary View of Family and Mental Health in Urban Communist China," by Ezra F. Vogel, Harvard University; "Components in Chinese Kin Terms of Reference and Address: The Toishan Data," by John McCoy, Cornell University; "Religious and Ritual Aspects of Chinese Kinship and Marriage," by Mr. Freedman; "The Chia as Kinship, Property, and Corporation," by Myron Cohen, Columbia University; "Land Tenure, Ecology, and Lineage Structure," by Jack M. Potter, University of California, Berkeley; "Kinship, Marriage and Family in Three Kinds of Modern Chinese Stories-in Taiwan, Communist, and Transitional China," by Ai-li S. Chin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; "Some Aspects of Clan and Lineageship in a Modern Chinese City -Taipei," by Mr. Fried; "Filial Sons and Their Sisters: Configuration and Culture in Chinese Families," by Mr. Skinner; and "Japanese Kinship, by Way of Comparison," by John C. Pelzel, Harvard University. It is expected that the papers will be published as a book, edited by Mr. Freedman. SOCIAL SCIENCE IN ITALY (Joint with Adriano Olivetti Foundation) Manlio Rossi Doria (chairman), Joseph LaPalombara (liaison), Francesco Alberoni, Norberto Bobbio, Massimo Fichera, Pendleton Herring, George H. Hildebrand, Wilbert E. Moore; Secretary, Alberto Spreafico The committee's second meeting, held in New York on October 5-7, was particularly concerned with decisions regarding programs to be undertaken in the immediate future. To facilitate these choices the secretary had prepared a number of reports, on such topics as the status and needs of specific disciplines, the nature of legislative pro-


posals for reforms in Italian higher education, and present and projected numbers of graduate students in various social science disciplines. The secretary had also prepared a report regarding the feasibility of social science training programs which the committee might support. The committee decided to support small-scale, intensive training programs: in economics, at the University of Ancona Superior Institute for Economic Studies; political science, University of Florence; sociology, and quantitative methods in social science, both at several institutions in Milan. Modest support will be provided to facilitate the introduction of courses in sociology and psychology at the Superior School for Public Administration, Caserta, and to aid in the development of training programs in sociology at the University of Rome. Major training seminars will be held under the intensive programs, each comprising five to ten students to be selected by specialized subcommittees on the basis of national competitions. The seminars will be under the general jurisdiction of distinguished Italian social scientists. Where necessary, a tutorial system will be part of the larger program. American and other non-Italian scholars are expected to participate in the training programs. Arrangements have been completed for the programs in quantitative methods, under the direction of Vittorio Capecchi, Professor of Sociology at Milan, and in economics, under the direction of Giorgio Fua, Professor of Economics at Ancona. As the result of discussions between members of the committee and officials of the National Research Council in Italy, the latter has assigned to the committee responsibility for awarding approximately 30 fellowships per year to Italian predoctoral students enrolled in the training seminars and other programs aided by the committee. These fellowships will provide stipends of approximately $2,000 per year and will be renewable. The first training programs are expected to begin early in 1967. The next meeting of the committee, scheduled to take place in Italy in the spring, will consider activities other than direct training efforts which the committee might promote. An important question for discussion is that of relating Italian efforts to similar programs and institutions in Europe and the United States. Another area of major concern is that of postgraduate training in the social sciences. Italian members of the committee are preparing documentation that will cast this problem within the broader framework of European developments in higher education. J. LAP. LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES (Joint with American Council of Learned Societies) Joseph Grunwald (chairman), Richard N. Adams, John P. Augelli, Robert N. Burr, Frank Dauster, Daniel Goldrich, Enrique Oteiza; staff, Bryce Wood In order to stimulate communication among younger scholars who have recently carried on field research in VOLUME




Latin American countries, and to learn more about problems and opportunities in such research, the committee held a conference in Puerto Rico on October 21-23. Most of the participants were current or former recipients of fellowships under the Foreign Area Fellowship Program, which has offered awards for Latin American studies over the past five years. Brief, informal papers were prepared by the Fellows about their field research and ways of meeting difficulties that they had encountered. The topics discussed at the conference included access to libraries and archives, feasibility of survey research and other methods of collecting new data, cultural aspects of research, guidelines for substantive research in various disciplines, collaboration in research by Latin and North American scholars, and prospects for the future. For scholars in different disciplines field research was found to present quite different choices and contexts. The range was suggested by comparing the geographer engaged in aerial photography with the sociologist or political scientist who is interviewing students, organizers of trade unions, or members of other groups. The geographer is concerned with the accuracy of "distance sensors" and the clarity of pictures of the terrain. The interviewer may find his questioning fruitless without a demonstration of sympathy with, or even some form of commitment to, the aims of his informants. The research of each may relate to social or economic development, but the actual exercise of technical specialties may have little in common. It was noted that a sociologist or political scientist may find that important sectors of a Latin American society are hostile to, and create difficulties for, the conduct of his research. This situation was contrasted with that a decade or so ago in East and West Africa, where the withdrawal of colonial powers left a relatively more open, less structured situation in which foreign scholars and local leaders maintained more informal and easy relationships. Independence had been achieved, vested interests were less firmly established, and research on alternative lines of economic, social, and political development could be undertaken with mutual interest and curiosity because any resulting recommendations rarely involved policies whose immediate costs of implementation would be very large. In addition to members of the committee and staff, the participants in the conference were Charles W. Anderson,

University of Wisconsin; David E. Apter, William P. McGreevey, Agnes E. Toward, and Ivan A. Vallier, University of California, Berkeley; David P. Barkin, Washington University; Martin Diskin, and Alan P. Sloan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ronald H. Dolkart, University of New Mexico; Kenneth P. Erickson, Jane Fearer, and Judith D. Tendler, Columbia University; Orlando Fals Borda, National University of Colombia; Edmundo Flores, National University of Mexico; Howard L. Gauthier, and James W. Wilkie, Ohio State University; James L. Gould, and Dorothy Soderlund, Foreign Area Fellowship Program; Bruce H. Herrick, University of California, Los Angeles; Pendleton Herring; Robert M. Levine, State University of New York at Stony Brook; R. Herbert Minnich, Goshen College; William P. Mitchell, University of Pittsburgh; Robert A. Packenham, and John D. Wirth, Stanford University; Nadine H. Rund, Tucson, Arizona; Joseph L. Sommers, University of Washington; and Pierre A. D. Stouse, Jr., University of Kansas. NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST (Joint with American Council of Learned Societies) Morroe Berger (chairman), Robert M. Adams, William M. Brinner, Charles Issawi, Bernard Lewis, Herbert H. Paper, Nadav Safran; staff, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr. On several occasions the committee has discussed the need for a professional organization of scholars concerned with research on the Near and Middle East since the beginning of Islam. In response to urgent requests from a number of such scholars, the committee arranged for some 30 representatives of the group to meet in New York City on September 29 to consider the feasibility of establishing such an association. The conference named Charles J. Adams, McGill University; Mr. Berger; Richard H. Nolte, Institute of Current World Affairs; William R. Polk, University of Chicago; and R. Bayly Winder, New York University, members of an independent committee to draft bylaws for a Middle East Studies Association and plans for an organizational meeting, which was held on December 9. At this meeting the new Association was formally established; Mr. Berger was elected its first President, and William I. Zartman of New York University was appointed Executive Secretary and Treasurer.

PERSONNEL DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL At the annual meeting of the board of directors of the Council in September, Lee J. Cronbach and Chauncy D. Harris were re-elected directors-at-large for the two-year term 1967-68. Charles A. Ferguson of the Center for Applied Linguistics and Colin MacLeod of the Commonwealth Fund were newly elected directors-at-large for the same term, and Gabriel A. Almond was elected to succeed Thomas S. Kuhn (resigned) for the balance of the 1966-67 DECEMBER


term. The other directors-at-large are Abram Bergson, Don K. Price, and Herbert A. Simon. Frederick Mosteller was elected chairman of the board of directors; Herbert A. Simon, vice-chairman; Morton H. Fried, secretary; and Abram Bergson, treasurer. The following members of the board were elected as its Executive Committee: David B. Truman (chairman), Dorwin Cartwright, Dell Hymes, Stanley Lebergott, and John Useem. Gardner Lindzey was named chairman of the Commi ttee on Problems and Policy; and Robert E. Ward was elected


a member of the committee. Its other members are Harold C. Conklin, R. A. Gordon, Chauncy D. Harris, Wilbert E. Moore, and ex officio: Pendleton Herring, Frederick Mosteller, and Herbert A. Simon. COUNCIL COMMITTEES ON FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS Faculty Research Grants. Victor Jones of the University of California, Berkeley (chairman), Dewey W. Grantham of Vanderbilt University, Irving B. Kravis of the University of Pennsylvania, and Frank R. Westie of Indiana University have been reappointed members of the committee for 1966-67, and Edward M. Bruner of the University of Illinois, Edward E. Jones of Duke University, and Lawrence Stone of Princeton University have been newly appointed. Governmental and Legal Processes. Austin Ranney of the University of Wisconsin (chairman), Philip E. Converse of the University of Michigan, Robert F. Fenno, Jr. of the University of Rochester, Samuel P. Huntington of Harvard University, and John C. Wahlke of the University of Iowa have been reappointed, and David J. Danelski of Yale University has been named to the committee for 1966-67. Social Science Personnel. Charles E. Gilbert of Swarthmore College has been reappointed chairman of the committee, which has charge of the Council's research training fellowship program. Norton Ginsburg of the University of Chicago, Samuel P. Hays of the University of Pittsburgh, Robert B. MacLeod of Cornell University, Melvin W. Reder of Stanford University, and Allan H. Smith of Washington State University also have been reappointed. Newly appointed to the committee is John C. McKinney of Duke University. JOINT COMMITTEES OF THE ACLS AND SSRC OFFERING GRANTS FOR RESEARCH African Studies. William O. Jones, Stanford University (chairman); L. Gray Cowan, Columbia University; Philip D. Curtin, University of Wisconsin; and Roy Sieber, Indiana University, have been reappointed members of the committee for 1966-67. Newly appointed are Elizabeth Colson, University of California, Berkeley; Walter Deshler, University of Maryland; Michael G. Smith, University of California, Los Angeles; and Robert F. Thompson, Yale University. Asian Studies. Robert I. Crane, Duke University, has been appointed chairman of the committee for 1966-67. H. G. Creel, University of Chicago; John L. Landgraf, New York University; and Richard L. Park, University of Michigan have been reappointed. New members are James W. Morley, Columbia University, and Laurence Sickman, Atkins Museum of Fine Arts, Kansas City, Missouri. Contemporary China. John M. H. Lindbeck, Harvard University (chairman); A. Doak Barnett, Columbia Univer54

sity; Alexander Eckstein, University of Michigan; John K. Fairbank, Harvard University; Walter Galenson, Cornell University; Robert A. Scalapino, University of California, Berkeley; and George E. Taylor, University of Washington, have been reappointed members of the committee for 1966-67. Albert Feuerwerker, University of Michigan, and Arthur P. Wolf, Cornell University, have been newly appointed. Foreign Area Fellowship Program. Pendleton Herring (chairman); Schuyler C. Wallace, Foreign Area Fellowship Program (director); Frederick Burkhardt, American Council of Learned Societies; Robert N. Burr, University of California, Los Angeles; and Chauncy D. Harris, University of Chicago, have been reappointed to the committee. Latin American Studies. Joseph Grunwald, Brookings Institution (chairman); John P. Augelli, University of Kansas; and Robert N. Burr, University of California, Los Angeles, have been reappointed members of the committee. Newly appointed members are Richard N. Adams, University of Texas; Frank Dauster, Rutgers - The State University; Daniel Goldrich, University of Oregon; and Enrique Oteiza, Torcuato Di Tella lnstitute, Buenos Aires. Near and Middle East. Morroe Berger, Princeton University (chairman); Robert M. Adams, University of Chicago; William M. Brinner, University of California, Berkeley; Charles Issawi, Columbia University; Bernard Lewis, University of London; Herbert H. Paper, University of Michigan; and Nadav Safran, Harvard University, have been reappointed members of the committee for 1966-67. Slavic Studies: Subcommittee on Grants for Slavic and East European Studies. Edward J. Brown, Indiana University; Alexander Erlich, Columbia University; and Charles Jelavich, Indiana University, have been reappointed members of the subcommittee. Newly appointed are Clayton L. Dawson, University of Illinois; Stephen D. Kertesz, University of Notre Dame; and Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, University of California, Berkeley. OTHER COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Edward F. Denison of the Brookings Institution, Otto Eckstein of Harvard University, and Rudolf R. Rhomberg of the International Monetary Fund have been added to the membership of the Committee on Economic Stability. Daniel X. Freedman of the University of Chicago and Stanley Schachter of Columbia University have been appointed members of the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior, formerly the Committee on Genetics and Behavior. The name of the committee was changed in September when its area of concern was broadened. Richard C. Atkinson of Stanford University has been appointed chairman of the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process for 1966-67. Harold H. Kelley of the University of California, Los Angeles, has been appointed a member of the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology. VOLUME




CONTENTS OF ITEMS, VOLUMES 19-20 (1965-66) ARTICLES Coleman, James S. Education and the Political Scientist, 19:5 . . SOCIO . l'znguzs . t'ICS: R eport Ferguson, Charles. A .. DirectlOn,s zn on an Interdisclplznary Semmar, 1~:1. Folger, John K. Plans of the C?mmlSSlOn on Human Resources and Advanced EducatIOn, 19:31 Ginsburg, Norton .. T~e ~~ternational Conference on "The Study of UrbanzzatlOn, 19:49 . Johnston, Bruce F., and Herman M. Southworth. Agricultural Development: Problems and Issues, 20:29 LaPalombara, Joseph, and Myron Weiner. Political Parties and Political Development: Observations from a Comparative Survey, 20: I Modigliani, Franco. Resea~ch on, t.he Links between Monetary Policy and EconomIc Actzvlty: A Progres~ Repor:t. of a Subcommittee of the Committee on EconomIc StabILIty, 20:7 Morrisett, Lloyd N. Preschool Education: Report on a Conference, 20: 17 A Note on the Pronunciation of "Shibboleth:' 19: 16 Riecken, Henry W. Survey of the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 20:45 . Rokkan, Stein, and Gabriel A. Almond. InternatIOnal Con.ference on Comparative Social Science Research, April 22-24,1965, 19:29 Schnore, Leo F. "The Study of Urbanization": Report of a Council Committee, 19:45 Smith, M. Brewster. Socialization for Competence, ~9:17 . Useem, John, and Allen D. Grimshaw. ComparatIVe SOCIology, 20:46 . van Gils, Maarten R., and Jaap Koekebakker. The Fzrst European Summer School on Social Psychology, The Hague, July 15 -August 11, 1965, 19:50 Ben Willerman, 1917-1965, 19:43 COMMITTEE BRIEFS AND OTHER REPORTS African Studies, 19: 12, 23, 32, 42; 20: 13 Agricultural Economics, 20:29 Areas for Social and Economic Statistics, 19:24; 20:9, 34 Asian Studies, 19:27; 20:26 Comparative Developmental Behavior, 19:33 . Comparative Politics, 19:5,. 29; 20: I, 9, 22 Conference Board of ASSOCIated Research CouncIls, 19:7 . Contemporary China, 19:8, 13, 24, 33, 42; 20:14 Liaison Committee on Study of Contemporary Chma, 20: 10, 34 Subcommittee on Research on Chinese Society, 20:22, 52 • An index to the contents of Items, Vols. 1-2 (1947-48) was published in Vol. 3. No. I (March 1949). pp. 11-12; to Vols. 3-8 (1949-54) in Vol. 8. No.4 (December 1954). pp. 49-51; to Vols. 9-11 (1955-57) in Vol. 11. No.4 (December 1957). pp. 54-55; to Vols. 12-15 (1958-61) in Vol. 15. No. 4 (December 1961). pp. 50-51; and to Vols. 16-18 (1962-{j4) in Vol. 18. No.4 (December 1964). pp. 5S-59.



Economic Growth, 19:8; 20:10 Economic Stability, 20:7 Economy of China, 19:34, 54; 20:22, 35 Exchanges with Asian Institutions, 19:8, 24; 20:10 Faculty Research Grants, 19:11, 26, 55; 20:25 Foreign Area Fellowship Program, 19:8, 35; 20:36 Governmental and Legal Processes, 19:9, 12; 20:10, 12, 22 Human Resources and Advanced Education, 19:9, 31 International Congresses in the United States, 19:9 International Organization, 19: 12, 42; 20: 10, 13, 35 Social Science in Italy, 20:10, 35, 52 Latin American Studies, 19:9, 13; 20:14, 23, 28, 52 Learning and the Educational Process, 19:10, 24; 20:11, 17 Near and Middle East, 19:14; 20:15, 23, 28, 53 Population Census Monographs, 20: II Simulation of Psychological and Social Processes, 19: 10, 25, 34, 54; 20: II, 23 Slavic Studies Subcommittee on Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, 19:27; 20:27 Social Science Personnel, 19:25; 20:24 Socialization and Social Structure, 19:17; 20:11, 35 Sociolinguistics, 19: 1; 20: 12 Survey of the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 20:45 Transnational Social Psychology, 19:34, 50; 20: 12, 36 Urbanization, 19:45, 49 PERSONNEL APPOINTMENTS Committees, 19:14; 20:15,42,54 Directors of the Council, 19:11, 56; 20:12, 53 Faculty Research Grants, 19:11, 26, 55; 20:25 Foreign Area Fellowships, 19:35; 20:36 Grants for African Studies, 19: 12, 42; 20: 13 Grants for Asian Studies, 19:27; 20:26 Grants for Latin American Studies, 19:13; 20:14, 28 Grants for Research on Contemporary China, 19:13, 42; 20:14 Grants for Research on Governmental and Legal Processes, 19:12; 20:12 Grants for Research on International Organization, 19: 12, 42; 20:13 Grants for Research on the Near and Middle East, 19: 14; 20:15, 28 Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, 19:27; 20:27 Officers and Staff of the Council, 19:56; 20:24, 53 Research Training Fellowships, 19:25; 20:24 Washington Office of the Council, 20:24, 44 ANNOUNCEMENTS Fellowships and Grants, 19:44; 20:44 PUBLICATIONS Books, 19:14, 28,43,56; 20:16, 28, 43, 56


PUBLICATIONS The Brookings Quarterly Econometric Model of the United States, edited by James S. Duesenberry, Gary Fromm, Lawrence R. Klein, and Edwin Kuh. Sponsored by the Committee on Economic Stability. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, and Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1965. 791 pages. $9.00. College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research, edited by Theodore M. Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson. Based on the work of seminars sponsored by the former Committee on Personality Development in Youth. National Opinion Research Center Monographs in Social Research No.8. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, October 1966. 317 pages. $8.95. Communication Sciences and Law: Reflections from the Jurimetrics Conference, edited by Layman E. Allen and Mary Ellen Caldwell. Product of a conference held by the Jurimetrics Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, with the aid of the former Committee on Political Behavior. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, February 1966. 462 pages. $17.50. Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in CrossNational Research, edited by Richard L. Merritt and Stein Rokkan. Product of a conference held by the International Social Science Council and the Yale Political Data Program, with the aid of the former Committee on Political Behavior. New Haven: Yale University Press, February 1966. 600 pages. $12.50. The Development of Sex Differences, edited by Eleanor E. Maccoby, with contributions also by Roy G. D'Andrade, Sanford M. Dornbusch, David A. Hamburg, Lawrence Kohlberg, Donald T. Lunde, Walter Mischel, and Roberta M. Oetzel. Product of the work group on sex differences, sponsored by the Committee on Socialization and Social Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, December 1966. 351 pages. $8.50. Early Behavior: Comparative and Developmental Approach, edited by Harold W. Stevenson, Eckhard H. Hess, and Harriet L. Rheingold. Revisions of papers prepared for conferences held by the former Committee on Comparative Developmental Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, January 1967. 352 pages. $9.75. Field Guide for a Study of Socialization (edited by Beatrice B. Whiting), by John W. M. Whiting, Irvin L. Child, William W. Lambert, et al. Revision of a Field Manual originally prepared under the auspices of the former Committee on Social Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, August 1966. 191 pages. $2.95.

Financing the Chinese Government Budget: Mainland China, 1950-1959, by George N. Ecklund. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, December 1966. 133 pages. $5.00. Income Distribution in the United States, by Herman P. Miller. Sponsored by the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, September 1966. 314 pages. $2.25. Invention and Economic Growth, by Jacob Schmookler. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, September 1966. 347 pages. $9.95. Learning by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal, edited by Lee Shulman and Evan R. Keislar. Proceedings of a conference held by Stanford University and the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process, January 28-29, 1965. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, December 1966. 237 pages. $5.00. Learning and the Educational Process: Selected Papers from the Research Conference . .. held at Stanford University, June 22 - July 31, 1964, edited by John D. Krumboltz. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, October 1965. 290 pages. $6.50. Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure, and Spread, by Simon Kuznets. Based in part on studies initiated or aided by the Committee on Economic Growth. New Haven: Yale University Press, December 1966. 546 pages. $12.50. Political Parties and Political Development, edited by Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner. Studies in Political DeveIopment 6, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, August 1966. 495 pages. $8.50. Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Seymour Martin Lipset. Papers prepared for a conference held by the Committee on Economic Growth, January 30 - February 1, 1964. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, August 1966. 408 pages. $10.75. Socialization after Childhood: Two Essays, by Orville G. Brim, Jr. and Stanton Wheeler. Revisions of papers pre路 pared for the Conference on Socialization through the Life Cycle, May 17-19, 1963, sponsored by the Committee on Socialization and Social Structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons, January 1966. 125 pages. Cloth, $4.95; paper, $2.25.








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















Officers and staff: PENDLETON HERRING, President; PAUL WEBBINlt, HENRY W. RIECKEN, Vice-Presidents; ELBRIDGE SmLEY, BRYCE WOOD, Executive Associates; ELEANOR C. ISBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., NORMAN W. STORER, Staff Associates; JEROME E. SINGER, Consultant; CATHERINE V. RONNAN, Financial Secretary


Profile for SSRC's Items & Issues

Items Vol. 20 No. 4 (1966)  

Items Vol. 20 No. 4 (1966)