Page 1




TWO DECADES OF COUNCIL ACTIVITY IN THE RAPPROCHEMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE by Susan Ervin- Tripp * will generally concede that language is fundamental to the definition of humanity, that language is central to nearly all phases of human activity, and that language is a product of society. Yet scholars have turned variously to focus on language as structure, as art, as skill to be learned, as medium of social integration, and worked in isolation from each other. In the past twenty years that separation has been diminished, thanks in large measure to the facilitative efforts of the Social Science Research Council. The impetus for a systematic bridge between psychology and linguistics was first given form by John B. Carroll, a psychologist familiar with linguistics. In 1951 an Interuniversity Summer Research Seminar on Linguistics and Psychology, held at Cornell University under the Council's program financed by the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation, discovered the term "psycholinguistics" and laid out some areas of profitable interchange, in the study of mother tongue acquisition, language structure and thought, the analysis of linguistic


• The author, Professor of Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley, is a director-at-large of the Social Science Research Council, and has long been associated with it in many capacities: as a predoctoral Research Training Fellow, 1952-53; a participant in the Interuniversity Summer Research Seminar in Psycholinguistics, 1953, and member of the staff of the Southwest Project in Comparative Psycholinguistics (and author of many reports on its studies), 1954-59, both under the auspices of the Committee on Linguistics and Psychology; grantee for attendance at the Congress of the International Union of Scientific Psychology, 1960; Faculty Research Fellow, 1964-65; consultant, Summer Research Seminar on Sociolinguistics, 1964; member, Committee on Sociolinguistics, 1966-70, and codirector of its pilot study of the acquisition of communicative competence by children in diverse sociocultural settings, 1966-69. This article was written at the invitation of the President of the Council as part of the commemoration of its 50th anniversary year_

structure with psychological methods, and the role of dialect in social class. Carroll and Charles E. Osgood, as an experimentalist interested in learning and symbolic processes, remained at the center of subsequent interdisciplinary activities organized by the Council's Committee on Linguistics and Psychology, appointed in 1952 as the aftermath of the 1951 seminar. Over the ensuing decade this committee generated and sponsored a series of meetings. The first and most general of these was a Summer Research Seminar on Psycholinguistics, held in 1953 in conjunction with the annual Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America (in Bloomington, Indiana). The seminar had a tripartite conceptual framework: linguistics, information theory, and the "learning theorists' conception of language as a system of habits." The first fruit of the seminar was a monograph entitled Psycho linguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems,! prepared by the senior staff and graduate student participants. The survey extended areas touched on at the 1951 seminar in more complete programmatic and theoretical form. In some cases it provided insightful new views of old issues, and in the next decade research followed to realize the prospectus. A decade later the survey of problems was reissued, still not completely out of date. On rereading this work, one is struck with an anomaly perhaps characteristic of integrative efforts at their inception. In almost every respect contemporary psycholinguistics has overthrown its progenitors. One might 1 Indiana University Publications ill Anthropology and Linguistics. Memoir 10, edited by Charles E. Osgood and Thomas A. Sebeok, October 1954; issued also as a supplement to the Journal of AbnOl'mal and Social Psychology, Vol. 49. No.4. October 1954.


argue that the very forces which led to the creation of the new field were brewing change in the parent fields. The psychology of learning dominant in the seminar was associationist; current psycholinguistics is more to be characterized as "cognitive," emphasizing the active, integrative operations of the mind. The dominant linguistics of the era was overthrown by N oam Chomsky and his successors. Information theory, in the version of the 1950's, ceased to have a strong influence when it was shown that grammar could not be accounted for by sequential probabilities. The great spurt of interest in psycholinguistics owed, of course, a good deal to the leadership of Chomsky, whose view that linguistics was an aspect of the science of the mind helped make issues central that linguists had once considered marginal. While the theoretical statements of the 1950's were superseded, the committee had some major accomplishments that influenced the following decade. It succeeded in spotlighting a series of important issues which required cross-disciplinary work. The labors of the committee not only led people to think about these issues; they helped to legitimize them with funding agencies. The various conferences and projects brought scholars together in the discussion of problems which some of them are still studying after two decades. The practice of including student participants in conferences had some long-range consequences for training; among those listed as graduate students present at conferences one finds such subsequently productive scholars as Eric Lenneberg, Howard Maclay, Wick Miller, Ursula Bellugi, Thomas Bever, Sol Saporta, Jean Berko, and Wallace Lambert. The subjects of conferences and seminars sponsored by the committee included a wide range: bilingualism, content analysis, association, meaning, style, linguistic universals, and aphasia. Four of these led to publications: Trends in Content Analysis, Style in Language, Universals of Language, and Approaches to the Study of A phasia. 2 A major project undertaken by the committee, with su pport from the Carnegie Corporation of N ew York, was the Southwest Project in Comparative Psycholinguistics, launched under the directorship of Carroll in 1955, in an effort to test the Whorf hypothesis that language structure influences culture and thought. While only two of the studies undertaken in the project cast significant light on that theme, the project produced 2Ithiel de Sola Pool, ed., Trends ill Content Analysis, University of Illinois Press, 1959; Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language, Technology Press, and John Wiley &: Sons, 1960; Joseph H. Greenberg, ed., Universals of Language, M.I.T. Press, 1963; Charles E. Osgood and Murray S. Miron, eds., Approflr;h("f to the Study of Aphasia, University of Illinois press, 19614,

numerous other valuable comparative studies, on synesthesia, word associations, semantic differentials, bilingualism, color naming, and color discrimination. By 1961, the Committee on Linguistics and Psychology could see that psycholinguistics was flourishing and. its mission had been accomplished, so it recommended that it be disbanded. An illustration of the ensuing growth of psycholinguistics is the conference, sponsored in 1961 by the Council's Committee on Intellective Processes Research, on the acquisition of language. The papers appeared in a monograph, which has been reprinted. s They are regarded as prime examples of a major area of psycholinguistics. The current Committee on Cognitive Research carries on this tradition in developmental language studies. In the development of psycholinguistics, the initiative had come from within psychology, perhaps because it was evident at that time that the psychological models derived from animal studies could not accommodate the problems of complex human behavior. The direction of the intellectual traffic in the relation of linguistics to the other social sciences began the opposite way. Anthropologists, of course, have always regarded language use as situated in community processes; their descriptions of rituals are prime examples of sequential discourse rules. But the initiative for establishment of the Committee on Sociolinguistics in 1963 came from linguists, spurred by Charles Ferguson of the former Committee on Lin-. guistics and Psychology. Then director of the Center for Applied Linguistics, Ferguson had written a classic work on code variation in societies, and was aware of policy decisions regarding language that many governments were making with an inadequate research base. The original membership of the Committee on Sociolinguistics included senior scholars in sociology and linguistics, who were interested in cross-cultural and comparative research, the language of social groups, and the relation of language to political integration. The first major activity of the new committee was a Summer Research Seminar held in Bloomington in conjunction with a Linguistic Institute in 1964. The seminar brought together sociologists, anthropologists, and linguists to discuss a range of earlier work on languages in contact, linguistic indices of social stratification, and the relations of social and political change to the linguistic integration of societies. Papers prepared by the participants in the seminar were published in special issues of Sociological Inquiry on a variety of sociolinguistic questions, and in an issue of the Journal of Social Issues on bilingualism, in subsequent years. 3 Ursula Bellugi and Roger Brown, eds., The Acquisition of Lan- • guage, Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, "01. 29, No. I. 1964.





During 1966-68 the committee sponsored two small conferences, on language problems in cross-cultural research, and on multilingualism and social change, in addition to two major conferences that resulted in pubIication of Language Problems of Developing Nations nd Pidginization and Creolization of Languages:' The • focus of the first major conference was on societal issues. Developing nations are often multilingual. They must discover a lingua franca, standardize diversity, develop literacy, find means to communicate in schools, industries, cities, political assemblies. Political decisions about language choice affect the power of competing groups, and affect unification, as the blood shed over language testifies. The second conference had as its focus a linguistic phenomenon. Pidgins arise in rather special societal conditions, in multilingual situations where the languages are quite different, in conditions of marginality which prevent the learning of the linguistic norms of a contact group. They provide the most vivid instance of communicative need generating a code, and provide an ongoing laboratory for the study of language genesis. Both conferences brought together scholars who had studied similar conditions in widely varying parts of the world, and defined a range of issues for collaboration between linguists and others. Although sociolinguistics, as defined by the committee focus, began with comparative issues, attention anoved to linguistic problems of ethnic minorities and ~o sociolinguistic surveys. Surveys in New York, Washington, Detroit, and elsewhere were initiated independently, but many of the scholars involved were members of the committee and it played a key role in stimulating the spread of such work and of panels reporting findings. The committee has recently helped in organizing a project on Chicano sociolinguistics, in this vein. A third aspect of the committee's interest has been work on "microsociolinguistics" or the study of face-toface interaction. A major pilot research project supported by the committee was a cross-cultural study of the acquisition of communicative competence. The project had three foci: cross-linguistic study of semantic, phonological, and grammatical development in children in the tradition of earlier psycholinguistic studies of child language; the development of the social functions and social rules of language in children, or child sociolinguistics; and the ethnography of communication, the study of the nexus of beliefs and practices regarding language which are the milieu of the child's language learning. The project began with the development of a field •

4 The first. edited by Joshua A. Fishman. Charles A. Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta, was published by John Wiley & Sons, 1968; the second, edited by Dell Hvmes, by Cambridge University Press, 1971.



manual by a cross-disciplinary faculty and student group in Berkeley, and the preparation of dissertations based on studies in Hungary, Finland, Samoa, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, and several California sites. Summer workshops sponsored by the committee in 1968, with the aid of National Science Foundation training funds, brought together 32 students and 7 field workers with faculty and visiting scholars for intensive study of the three problem areas. This work continues, in studies ongoing in Turkey, Yugoslavia, Italy, and the United States on more systematic acquisition questions. This research in developmental psycholinguistics has yielded more knowledge of first-language acquisition, especially, than was previously available. It has shown that acquisition involves an orderly sequence, in which the order of mastery of a number of phonological, syntactical, and lexical elements-although not necessarily the age of mastery-is standard in children of normal social environments. This is true both within a particular language and, given suitable comparisons, across a rather wide variety of languages from a number of different language families. The work has also demonstrated particular aspects characteristic of specific languages or linguistic environments. Conferences explored problems of classroom communication, and issues in the ethnography of speaking. The latter conference included sessions on community ground rules, genres, scenes and roles, and the definition of speech community; the papers will soon be published in book form.1I Studies of these topics continue at the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and the University of Texas at Austin; working paper series foster interchanges of findings. Conversational analysis is undergoing rapid development. Initially the area was developed by sociologists. those called "ethnomethodologists"-Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Aaron Cicourel, primarily-who worked closely on the structure and presuppositions apparent in recorded texts of spontaneous interaction. John Gumperz has added attention to fine-grained linguistic features in signaling changes in social meaning. A summary of the state of the field is well represented in the 1972 Georgetown University Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, which was cosponsored by the committee and focused on the current state of sociolinguistics. Papers were presented on language planning, multilingualism, sociolinguistic surveys and investigations of variability in language through such means, conversational analysis, and the ethnography of speaking. These culminated in three 6 Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, eds., Explorations in the Eth nography Of Speahing, Cambridge University Press, June 1974.


volumes of reports. a Publication of two new journals has been initiated at the instigation of former or current committee members, the first, Language in Society) begun in response to committee urging. All these activities, including maintenance of a sociolinguistics correspondence list, have been stimulated by the commit.tee. The joining of interests was first initiated within linguistics, because of concern with larger societal issues. Recently, linguists have begun to broaden their field to embrace new social considerations at the very threshold of syntax. Charles Fillmore, a new member of the committee, with other linguists has been relating pragmatics to other traditional levels of language. These linguists, in the quest for rules that will solve some syntactic puzzles, have encountered discourse and the larger social context as systematic determinants of structural outcomes. Dell Hymes, chairman of the Committee on Sociolinguistics from 1970 to 1973 and now cochairman with Allen Grimshaw, believes its work is only at the threshold of the major change it envisages. In his view sociolinguistics as a separate field will disappear, because there will be a "socially constituted linguistics." In this view language is just one means to social ends. His vision is not of collaboration between fields with essentially separate purposes, methods, and theories, but occasionally converging topics such as multilingualism 6 Roger W. Shuy, ed., Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects, Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 25; Roger W. Shuy and Ralph W. Fasold, eds., Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects; and Joan Rubin and Roger W. Shuy, cds., Language Planning: Current Issues and Research; Georgetown University Press, 1973.

and acculturation. He foresees a radical change in the perspective of those who study language. Indeed, at the 1973 Linguistic Institute sociologists taught conversational analysis, and linguists set aside categorical rules to study variability and learn some statistics; the Inst.itute was centered on sociolinguistics. Where do these two fields, psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics, stand at present? There are scholars who consider themselves and are regarded as specialists in each of these fields, and whose training in parent disciplines gives credibility to both positions. There is significant overlap between the domains of the earlier Council committee and the current one, especially with respect to issues of acquisition, socialization, and semantic structure. Many, like Hymes, deplore the existence of compound disciplines, and would rather see linguistics broaden its scope and presuppositions. Problems are now being studied that once were considered marginal. New theories are being developed at all levels of study, and new types of formal rules are being discovered. The ground broken is so fresh that even undergraduate students find new knowledge in their term projects. The most persuasive evidence of the radical interpenetration of disciplines is the development of a generation of students who can discuss language without immediately revealing whether they are psychologists, linguists, anthropologists, or sociologists. Whether or not universities hav. adapted their formal apparatus to these changes, by th development of new programs or departments, the students reflect the reality of the changed intellectual boundaries first envisaged by the SSRC committees.

RESEARCH ON SOCIAL BEHAVIOR: IMPACT OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES by M. Brewster Smith and Gardner Lindzey * RESEARCH in the broad field of social behavior has been marked by steady progress in the sophistication of questions asked and the precision of methods used to answer them. At its biological and physical boundaries it has produced Nobel Laureates (three European ethologists, Lorenz, Tinbergen, and von Frisch, as well as von

Bekesy for his work in psychophysics), and it is not unreasonable to expect that the future will bring comparable recognition for one or more of the main body of social scientists who work on problems that are typical of research by the social psychologist, sociologist, anthropologist, and political scientist. Among these problems

• The authors are members of the Council's board of directors who have long records of participation in Council activities in the field of social behavior. They prepared this article at the invitation of the President of the Council, as part of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of its founding. Mr. Smith, now Vice Chancellor - Social Sciences and Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was first associated with the Council as a member of the research staff, 1945-46, of the committee appointed to analyze the experience of the Research Branch, Information and Education Division, ASF, in which he had served during World War II. He is a coauthor of The 4merican SoldieT, Vol. 2, Combat and Its Aftermath, produced under the committee's sponsol'-

ship. A recipient of a Demobilization Award under the Council's special postwar fellowship program, he spent the next year in graduate study for the Ph.D. in social psychology at Harvard University. In 1949 he became a member of the Council's new interdisciplinary Committee on Political Behavior, on which he served until 1956. During 1952-56 he was a full-time member of the Council's professional staff. In that capacity he participated also in the work of the Committees on Social Behavior, on Personality Development, and on Cross-Cultural Education. In subsequent years he has been a member of the Committee on Socialization and Social Structure, 1960-{i7, and contributor its final report, Socialization and Society Gohn A. Clausen, ed., a director of the Council and member of the Committee on Problems VOLUME




are ·a number that have become matters of intense national and international concern. Not surprisingly, many of these major currents in the stream of research on social behavior have flowed through Council committees, conerences, and workshops, and their distinctive impact • anges from the biological to the humanistic ends of the social science continuum. One clear example of a powerful influence on the domain of social behavior involves the zone of contact between modern linguistics and, first, psychology, then sociology. Here, as shown in the preceding report by Susan Ervin-Tripp, the Council's initiative seems so strong and distinctive that if one tries imaginatively to subtract the effects of the Council's participation, it is hard not to conclude that important scientific developments would have been delayed or missed. Both psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics were conceived, gestated, and nurtured under Council auspices. While the Committee on Sociolinguistics continues to give leadership to work in its area, both fields have been launched on trajectories of their own, independent of Council sponsorship. Another example is the impact of the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology (1964- ), which under the leadership of Leon Festinger spread the laboratorybased and theoretically oriented experimental social psychology that had flowered in the United States after Avorld War II to Western and even Eastern Europe. ~hrough training institutes and international conferences, and through the broadening of its own membership, the committee played a major part in creating an organized European community of experimental social psychologists, who now are bringing an independent and divergent perspective to bear on the problems tha t American workers in this field had been addressing. A third example of a distinctive contribution is asso-

and Policy since 1970, and a member of the Committee on Grants to Minority Scholars for Research on Racism and Other Social Factors in Mental Health since 1972. Mr. Lindzey, now Vice-President and Dean of Graduate Studies and Professor of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, was first associated with the Council as a participant in its 1953 Summer Institute in Mathematics. In 1956 at the request of the Committee on Social Behavior he undertook a critical review of the use of projective techniques that resulted in publication of his Projective Techniques and Cross-Cultural Research (1961). He received Grants-in-Aid from the Council in 1956 and 1957 for his research on selected personality variables in interpersonal relations, and a grant for attendance at the Congress of the International Union of Scientific Psychology, 1960. During 1960-63 he was a member of the Committee on Faculty Research Fellowships. From 1961 to 1966 he was chairman of the new Committee on Genetics and Behavior; and he has continued as a member of its successor, the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior. Mr. ·ndzey has been a director of the Council since 1963. Appointed a memr of the Committee on Problems and Policy in that year, he served as its chairman, 1965-70. In 1970 he was elected to the Executive Committee, and has served as its chairman since 1971. MARCH


ciated with the field of behavioral genetics, which in 1961-at the time that the Committee on Genetics and Behavior was formed-included no more than a dozen or so disparate investigators. There is little doubt that the committee, through its activities to be described subsequently, has played a major role in the development of what has become a significant interdisciplinary specialty, with its own scientific society, journal, graduate programs, and the like. More typical, however, is the influence of Council committees as important channels through which leading psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have carried forward work on the problems of their disciplines, and particularly on problems that cut across disciplinary boundaries. Five lines of work that have figured prominently in Council activities over the years are reviewed briefly below: personality development in its cultural and social context, cognitive development, the biological bases of social behavior, studies intended to have relatively immediate social relevance or utility, and the development of appropriate and more powerful research methods. PERSONALITY IN SOCIETY AND CULTURE The Committee on Personality and Culture (193040), which was chaired for much of its tenure by Mark May and involved luminaries of the time like Sapir, Linton, Redfield, Herskovits, Woodworth, Thomas, Sellin, and Burgess, helped to formulate and give direction to research conceived within the "culture and personality" intellectual movement that extended over the 1930's and 1940's. Through subcommittees advising specially commissioned projects, the committee left works of enduring value in its wake that shaped for the time the study of acculturation, delinquency, and cooperativecompetitive "habits." A successor Committee on Social Adjustment (194047), chaired by Burgess, tilled much the same interdisciplinary ground, with newly emerging problems in view. Three decades later, two products are especially memorable: R. R. Sears' Survey of Objective Studies of Psychoanalytic Concepts (Council Bulletin 51, 1943), prepared for the Subcommittee on Motivation, a first step toward bringing the Freudian theories that were then capturing the attention of psychologists under scientific scrutiny; and R. S. Woodworth's Heredity and Environment (Council Bulletin 47, 1941), prepared in connection with the committee's responsibility for advising a study of foster children, which framed the perennial issues of nature vs. nurture with a sophistication seldom attained again in the ensuing decades and only recently superseded. Both volumes have been reprinted 5

many times. Other topics explored in depth with the guidance of subcommittees were the prediction of social adjustment (a topic for methodological critique and development, under the direction of S. A. Stouffer) and social adjustment in old age. In 1951 a new Committee on Social Behavior was formed under the chairmanship of L. S. Cottrell, Jr., with the explicit intent of carrying forward work in the area previously tended by the Committee on Social Adjustment, where the concerns of psychology, sociology, and anthropology overlap. This committee organized conferences and encouraged summer seminars focusing research issues on a variety of topics, including interpersonal communication and influence, public communication, community studies, and social integration. It soon developed a primary concern with the socialization of the child, and a commitment to developing a systematic cross-cultural approach to understanding the socialization process. As John Whiting, chairman of the Subcommittee on Socialization that was appointed in 1952, argued persuasively, only through cross-cultural studies of personality development could wide variation in socialization variables be disentangled from deviance with respect to normative practices in a particular culture. The subcommittee, reconstituted in 1954 as the Committee on Personality Development, participated in the planning and revision of a field manual for the collection of systematic observational data, which was employed in a coordinated study of child rearing in six cultures. In its reliance on quantitative methods, this landmark research involving mainly anthropologists and psychologists contrasted with the more qualitative and clinical orientation of the former "culture and personality" studies. Once again in 1960 another beginning was made. This time sociologists and psychologists were primarily involved, in the Commi~tee on Socialization and Social Structure, chaired by J. A. Clausen. A program of conferences, commissioned papers, and small local workgroups supported on university campuses fed into the seminar-like discussions of the committee itself, culminating in a benchmark volume, Socializ.ation and Society (edited by Clausen, 1968) in which the members of the committee sought to communicate their jointly achieved new perspectives on socialization research. The family, the school, and the institutions of the community at large were examined as contexts for socialization, understood by the committee as also extending into adult life and maturity. Moral development, a newly active research topic that was the subject of a productive conference under committee auspices, was seen as posing a challenging problem for competing theories of personality development and socialization. The committee established 6

good communication with those doing relevant research in Germany, Israel, France, and England. This sequence of interrelated, cyclical research planning activity under the guidance of Council committees reaches the present through the appointment in 1972 a Committee on Work and Personality in the Middl Years, under the chairmanship of O. G. Brim, Jr., who had been a member of the Committee on Socialization and Social Structure. Like the earlier committee, the new one conceives of socialization as a lifelong process. It proposes a program to stimulate research on personality in the neglected middle years. Clearly there is no end to this iterative process, in which new interdisciplinary combinations of social scientists seek to clarify the problems then emerging as promising for research, and to lay the basis for next steps.


COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT We have seen that personality and personality development have been recurrent foci of attention through most of the Council's history. Research interest in the cognitive development of children came much later. Appropriately, the first in a series of published proceedings of conferences sponsored by the Committee on Intellective Processes Research (1959-64) dealt with Piaget's contributions to the understanding of cognitive development in relation to other theories. It was th impact of Piaget's work, more than anything else, tha catalyzed the new interest in cognitive development. This committee, chaired successively by Roger Brown and William Kessen, in which developmental psychologists predominated but anthropologists also participated, played an important part in giving coherence as well as forward thrust to the burst of research in this rapidly growing area. Published conference reports on such topics as language acquisition in children, mathematical learning, learning to read, and transcultural studies of cognitive systems were benchmarks of progress. Through its conferences the committee also strengthened the international network of scholarly communication essential to rapid growth. Beginning in 1962, the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process (whose chairmen included L. J. Cronbach and W. H. Holtzman) pursued a complementary program of conferences and publications centering on the educational processes that foster learning and cognitive development. The topics ranged from preschool learning and early education to learning by discovery, computer-assisted instruction, and compensatory education. Aimed especially at improving the quality educational research, this committee's concerns over lapped those of the Committee on Intellective Processes






Research, but involved a different clientele. This committee also developed lines of communication with research in Europe. A new generation of workers in cognitive research has been emerging in this still very active field, with continued interests in developmental aspects but with broader interests as well. As a consequence the newly fonned interdisciplinary Committee on Cognitive Research (1972- ) has developed an ambitious proposed program of research seminars and small conferences to advance research on challenging topics. BIOLOGICAL BASES OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Two decades after publication of Woodworth's He,.edity and Environment, already noted, Council attention to biological factors in social behavior was renewed with the appointment in 1961 of the Committee on Genetics and Behavior. Behavior genetics was emerging as a scientifically promising and humanly impoI'tant field; few social scientists were equipped, however, to work in it. In the committee's plans to facilitate communication between geneticists and social scientists and to promote research in this interdisci plinary area, therefore, the committee gave high priority to providing basic biological training for social scientists. It and the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior (1966- ) -its successor with broadened charter-sponsored a number of summer training institutes that substantially extended the biological competence of able young social scientists: on behavior genetics for social scientists and for developmental psychologists, on population genetics for social scientists, on neurobiology and psychophysiology. Its strategy in this "compensatory" training was guided by a major conference on biological training for social scientists. Several substantive conferences in the area of behavior genetics have led to published volumes. A monograph surveying research and policy questions concerning the delicate questions surrounding racialethnic differences in measured perfonnance is now nearing completion. After a dozen years, it is clear that the work of these committees has helped notably to reduce the traditional parochialism of social science; to advance a Zeitgeist that sees the interdependence of biological and social factors in more balanced perspective; and to stimulate research on a difficult and controversial new frontier. PROJECTS WITH RELATIVELY IMMEDIATE SOCIAL RELEVANCE

Most of the Council's activities in the area of social behavior were aimed mainly at the advancement of soMARCH


cial science, with the reasonable expectation that better social science will prove to be socially more useful in the long run. Some of the Council's efforts were nevertheless directly concerned with pressing social problems, as two examples from the immediate postwar years and one from the present will serve to illustrate. With the advice of an interdisciplinary committee, R. M. Williams, Jr. was commissioned to review and organize the existing literature on intergroup tension and conflict and how these might be abated. His resulting report, published as Council Bulletin 57, The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions: A Survey of Research on Problems of Ethnic, Racial, and Religious Group Relations (1947), not only provided a timely organization of existing knowledge and hypotheses; it ventured predictions and policy suggestions that might have eased some of the social strains to which the United States has been subjected, had they been more widely heeded. In a similar venture, Otto Klineberg was commis· sioned shortly thereafter to make a critical study of social science contributions to the understanding of international tensions, a topic then of central interest to the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO. His report, Council Bulletin 62, Tensions Affecting International Understanding: A SU1"Vey of Research (1950) provided a scholarly appraisal of the evidence bearing on this continuing problem . In 1973 a new interdisciplinary Committee on Television and Social Behavior was appointed to plan and stimulate research in response to public and governmental concern with TV violence. In its initial plans, the committee expects to be responsive to this immediate concern while attentive to the problems posed for research by the wider range of likely effects of this pervasive mass medium. DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH METHODS The advancement of knowledge of social behavior requires better methods for its study. Most of the lines of substantive Council concern with social behavior that have been touched on above include attention to the criticism, development, and improvement of research methods, where very substantial progress indeed is evident during the past half century. In one important area, sampling and attitude measurement in survey research, the Council played a major role. Near the very beginning of the systematic attempt to measure attitudes, the Council formed a Special Technical Committee on the Measurement of Attitudes and Public Opinion (1928-30) under the chairmanship of L. L. Thurstone. A long-lived committee, joint with the National Research Council, on the Measurement of


Opinion, Attitudes and Consumer Wants (1945-54) brought leading academic and commercial opinion researchers and statisticians together under the chairmanship of S. A. Stouffer to plan and promote intensive study of methodological problems in the field. A number of basic studies of sampling methods, interviewer effects, and panel methods were conducted and published under its auspices. "Studies in Social Psychology in World War II" (1949-50)-the series including the two volumes of The American Soldier prepared by Stouffer and others under the auspices of a special Council committeemade further large contributions to the technology of survey research, in the course of reporting reanalyses of the wartime studies by the Research Branch, Information and Education Division, ASF. When the pre-election polls of 1948 dramatically failed to pick the winner in the Truman-Dewey contest, a Council committee was appointed to review the evidence made available by the principal polling agencies and attempt to identify the many sources of error. The resulting publication, Council Bulletin 60, The Pre-election Polls of 1948, was a substantial contribution to survey methodology, which established solidly the requirement of probability sampling for serious scientific or political surveys, and has had an 'Obvious impact upon survey research in subsequent years. A Committee on Scaling Theory and Methods (1950-57), chaired by Harold Gulliksen, sponsored fundamental research on issues of measurement shared by social psychology and psychophysics, which

resulted in W. S. Torgerson's Theo'l"y and l\IIelhods of Scaling (1958). The methodological problems involved in social experiments have been examined most recently by the Committee on Experimentation as a Method for Plan- • ning and Evaluating Social Intervention. A forthcoming volume reviews the technical problems of approximating true experiments and the managerial, political, and institutional issues that must be resolved if social experiments are to serve a useful purpose. Quantitative methods for analyzing causation with non experimental data have also been developed through conferences under Council auspices. Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences, edited by A. S. Goldberger and O. D. Duncan, was published in 1973; it contains papers using causal inference in such areas as occupational achievement, educational attainment, and Congressional voting. This brief survey of a half century of Council activities in the area of research on social behavior is necessarily incomplete. Nonetheless, the reader could reasonably conclude that many of the most important currents of research on social behavior during this period have flowed through the Council and its committees. Surely there have been cumulative gains, especially in the sophistication of research questions and methods; but in some areas the Council has only exemplified the shifting state of the field, while in others it has given notable leadership that has surely made a difference.


by Dwight H. Perkins * DURING

the past two decades economists have tended to ignore China's economic experience prior to 1949, while economic historians have been reluctant to pierce the 1949 barrier from the opposite direction. This mutual isolation has begun to break down in recent years, but most economists have continued to assume that the China of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was "poor and blank," a tabula rasa on which the

leaders of the Chinese Communist Party could construct any economic model they pleased. Historians never accepted the "poor and blank" image, but few ventured forth with explicit connections between the pre- and post-1949 economies. The Conference on the Chinese Economy in Historical Perspective-sponsored on June 18-19, 1973 by the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy, of

• The author is Professor of Economics and Associate Director of the East Asian Research Center, Harvard University. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy, he organized and served as chairman of the conference on which he reports here. The other members of the subcommittee, Robert Dernberger, University of Michigan; Albert Feuenverker, University of Michigan; John G. Gurley, Stanford University; K. C. Yeh, Rand Corporation; and staff, David L. Sills, also attended the conference. The other participants were Kang Chao, University of Wisconsin; Alexander Eckstein, University of Michigan; Mark Elvin, University of Oxford; John C. H. Fei, Yale University;

Robert M. Hartwell, University of Pennsylvania; Albert Keidel, Harvard University; Paul W. Kuznets, Indiana University; Simon Kuznets, Harvard University; Ramon H. Myers, University of Miami; Thomas G. Rawski, University of Toronto; Bruce Reynolds, University of Michigan; Carl Riskin, Columbia University; Peter Schran, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Yeh-chien Wang, Kent State University. The conference was supported by funds made available by the Ford • Foundation for the program of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China. The papers prepared for the conference are being edited by its chairman for publication by the Stanford University Press.









the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, American Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Research Council-was designed to speed up the removal of this barrier. Although less than complete agreement :was achieved on many important points, the results of he conference will appear to many as strongly revisionist in tone. Certainly many of the standard assumptions about Chinese economic growth (or the lack of it) in the twentieth century did not stand up well when analyzed in depth. Thus, for example, available evidence suggests that handicrafts may not have declined at all prior to the 1940's and certainly were not as depressed as most contemporary writers implied. And per capita income does not appear to have declined during the decades of the twentieth century prior to the Japanese attack in 1937. Three major questions predominated in the conference papers and discussion. Several of the early sessions were devoted to discussion of what had held back economic progress in China before the 1949 revolution. Were foreigners and foreign intervention to blame or, as one paper put it, was foreign involvement in China a necessary if not a sufficient condition for China's entrance into modern economic growth? Certainly, little dynamism seemed to be left in China's traditional economy in the first half of the twentieth century. Indigenous technological innovation had largely ceased after he thirteenth century; and agriculture, the principal ector, was approaching a high-level equilibrium with the opening up of the last available arable land and the exhaustion of the potential of traditional techniques. If there was little dynamism remaining in the traditional economy, why did it take Chinese governments and entrepreneurs so long to take advantage of the new technology available from Europe and America? Net investment in the Chinese economy prior to 1949 was negligible, but this was not because China was caught in a vicious circle of poverty, too poor to save and hence to invest. One paper estimated the total potential "surplus" to be roughly 37 percent of net domestic product, and tapping this surplus allowed the Communists to raise both the rate of investment and per capita consumption. Prior to 1949, these surplus funds had been expended largely on consumption by the well-to-do. If both capital and modern technology were potentially available before 1949, China's failure to develop must be attributable to the nation's governmental and social structure and to the values and experiences of the people. Few participants in the conference disputed the limitations of China's pre-1949 government and the soial structure that reinforced it, but there was much ess agreement about the nature and effects of the values of traditional Chinese society and the skills of its people. MARCH


As one essay pointed out, many aspects of the tradition made large numbers of Chinese not only literate but gave them experience with complex organizations, as well as with markets, and with intricate technologies. As a result, even in the nineteenth century Chinese businessmen were formidable competitors of foreigners in the treaty ports. And today in Southeast Asia Chinese minorities, and to a significant degree only the Chinese minorities, are fostering an area-wide economic boom. Thus there was much in the tradition that encouraged modern economic growth. All values did not have to be swept aside before progress was possible. A second major theme of the conference was that China did experience considerable economic change and modernization prior to 1949, but not enough to raise per capita income significantly or to modernize the economic life of more than a small fraction of the population. By 1949, however, China did have a large modern textile industry and even the beginning of a machine-building sector completely managed and operated by Chinese. In fact, most of the increase in industrial output prior to 1958 came not from new plants, but from the rehabilitation and enhanced productivity of enterprises built during the first four decades of the twentieth century. The standard analyses of the Chinese economic experience of the 1950's and 1960's conclude that the People's Republic began by attempting to emulate the Stalinist model of economic growth and, increasingly dissatisfied with the results, moved to a more Maoist or at least more Chinese model. There is much truth in this standard picture, but this formulation neglects the fact that many features of Chinese development in both the 1950's and the 1960's reflected not so much deliberate policy as an underlying economic heritage. Thus, the rapid growth in the share of industry relative to the share of agriculture in national product continued unabated in both periods, in spite of a major shift in Chinese investment priorities toward agriculture in the early 1960's. A likely explanation is that even a major shift in priorities could not offset the effects of an inherited labor-surplus land-short factor endowment. In fact, much the same pattern also prevails in other large labor-surplus land-short, but nonsocialist, economies such as Japan and South Korea. The third theme of the conference was that even the peculiarly socialist features of Chinese economic institutions after the revolution owed something to the past. This was clearly true of the size and structure of rural communes, which had to be related to the existing village-market town structure, which in turn had evolved out of a need to limit transport costs while taking advantage of specialization and economies of scale. And 9

cooperation within and between families, particularly on water control projects, was nothing new to rural China, although it was carried out on a vastly increased scale after 1949. Finally, it was not just the traditional heritage that shaped some Chinese policies and institutions after 1949. The Chinese Communist Party had in its own past rich experience in wartime Xenan, one of the most backward areas of China, the inspiration for many of the policies of the late 1950's and 1960's. The conference, of course, did not conclude that all aspects of China's post-1949 economic performance could be traced back to an earlier period. In fact, the effort to relate the present to the past placed in bold relief some of the enormous changes that have occurred. In a few years, China's rate of capital formation rose from negligible levels to one of the highest rates anywhere in countries with per capita incomes of under $500 (U.S.). Whereas before 1949 only the Japanese seemed capable of building and operating steel mills in China, after 1949 large mills were soon both built and operated by Chinese in many parts of the country. However, it is in the area of income distribution that

China has departed furthest from its own past and from the experience of most other less developed countries. By the late 1950's, China had only begun to modernize its economy, but it had confiscated the income of most of the rich and redistributed it to investment and the poor. This move, together with the rationing 0 basic food and clothing, effectively eliminated the extreme forms of poverty so apparent to all before 1949. All of this was accomplished without a significant rise in national per capita consumption. Perhaps the major accomplishment of the conference was not in the specific conclusions reached or the hypotheses tested. For nearly a decade economists working on the Chinese economy have been increasingly frustrated by the partial blackout of Chinese statistics and by the rapidly diminishing intellectual returns from the rehashing of data from the 1950's. Although the blackout is slowly beginning to lessen, the conference clearly brought home to most participants that economists have only scratched the surface of the Chinese experience, broadly conceived, and that there are large quantities of data on which to base new research.


G. WILLIAM SKINNER AND CHINESE BIBLIOGRAPHY PRODUCED UNDER HIS DIRECTION HONORED AT SSRC LUNCHEON G. WILLIAM SKINNER, Professor of Anthropology, Stanford University, was honored at a luncheon given by the Social Science Research Council on January 24, 1974, to celebrate the publication of the three-volume analytical bibliography, Modern Chinese Society.l This publication provides social scientists, historians, and, indeed, all scholars for the first time with a comprehensive and systematically analyzed list of works on China published since 1644 in all languages and from all disciplines. Work on the bibliography was initiated ten years ago in accordance with plans developed by Skinner, under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Research on Chi1 Present at the luncheon were: Florence Anderson, Carnegie Corporation of New York; William L. Bradley, Edward W. Hazen Foundation; Frederick Burkhardt, American Council of Learned Societies: Victor Chen, New Yorker; Frank Ching, New York Times; Albert Feuerwerker, University of Michigan; David Finkelstein, Ford Foundation; Ta Chun Hsu, Starr Foundation; Patrick G. Maddox, Social Science Research Council; Norman Mann, Social Science Research Council; Russell A. Phillips, Jr., Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Nathan M. Pusey, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; Benjamin I. Schwartz, Harvard University; Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, Social Science Research Council; David L. Sills, Social Science Research Council; G. William Skinner, Stanford University; Tai Tseng-yi, Hsinhua News Agency; Shigeaki Tomita, United Nations Fund for Population Activities; Martha Wallace, Henry Luce Foundation; Edwin A. Winckler, Columbia University; Sophie Sa Winckler; Bryce Wood, Emergency Committee to Aid Latin American Scholars; and Eugene Wu, Harvard-Yenching Institute.


nese Society appointed by the Council. "Professor Skin. ner's achievement is a major landmark in scholarship," said Eleanor Sheldon, the Council's President, "not just for those who will find it indispensable, but for the innovative concepts and technology employed in its preparation." The bibliography is published by Stanford University Press in three volumes: Publications in Western Languages, 1644-1972, Volume I, edited by G. William Skinner; Publications in Chinese, 1644-1969, Volume 2, edited by G. William Skinner and Winston Hsieh; Publications in Japanese, 1644-1971, Volume 3, edited by G. William Skinner and Shigeaki Tomita. Their 2,300 pages contain 31,441 entries in English, Chinese, and Japanese. In order to prepare the bibliography, approximately 90,000 titles were compiled and then located in libraries throughout the world and evaluated by the project's 120 trained annotators. Financial support for the preparation and publication of the bibliography was provided by the following foundations and other organizations: Carnegie Corporation of New York; East Asian Institute, Columbia univer. sity; Council on Library Resources; Ford Foundation including funds contributed by the Joint Committee on VOLUME




Contemporary China; Harvard-Yenching Institute; Edward W. Hazen Foundation; IBM Corporation; LondonCornell Project, Cornell University; Henry Luce Foundation; Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; National Endowment for the Humanities; National Science Foundation; Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Social Science Research Council; Stanford University, including the Center for East Asian Studies, the Center for Research in International Studies, and the Hoover Institution; and the Starr Foundation. At the luncheon brief remarks were made by the guest of honor and by Eleanor Sheldon, Eugene Wu, Benjamin I. Schwartz, and Albert Feuerwerker, chairman of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China of the ACLS and SSRC. In commenting on the bibliography,

the latter said, "Undoubtedly these three volumes will do a great deal to achieve their editors' aim: to bring the Chinese experience closer to the mainstream of social science." The publication of Modern Chinese Society is designed to combat the tendency of social scientists and historians studying China and its society to remain isolated in discrete communities bounded by language, political alignment, and discipline. Skinner conceived the bibliography from the outset as ignoring these artificial boundaries, admitting works in all languages and disciplines by scholars of all political persuasions. As he wrote in the "Preface," it is hoped that the bibliography will "bring Chinese society fully within the range of comparative and general studies, where it belongs."


WITH THE ASSISTANCE of the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, a small conference on the history of modem Japanese international relations was held in Tokyo on June 1-4, 1973. The purpose of the conference was to bring together American and Japanese scholars to clarify the basic ideas and attitudes toward international politics that underlie policy decisions. Participants were instructed to prepare broad, speculative essays that would stimulate fresh insights and promote comparative analysis. 1 Since each part,i cipant could speak in the language most convenient for him and be understood by all others without resort to interpreters, the exchange of ideas was facilitated. Conference discussions focused on two broad sets of problems. The first was methodological: How does one analyze the attitudinal substructure of a nation's foreign policy? Indiv·idual authors offered very different responses to that question. Their analytical methods • The author is Assistant Professor of History, University of Southern California. and National Fellow. Hoover Institution. He developed the plans for the conference on which he reports here with Seizaburo Sato, Professor of Political Science and Japanese Politics, Tokyo University. They served as cochairmen of the conference. and are editing the papers for publication in both English and Japanese. 1 Papers were presented by the cochairmen of the conference and by the following other participants: Junji Banno. Ochanomizu University; Gordon Berger, University of Southern California; Marlene Mayo. University of Maryland; Taichiro Mitani. Tokyo University; Shumpei Okamoto. Temple University; Stephen Pelz. University of Massachusetts; and Akio Watanabe. Meiji University. The discussants were: Peter Duus, Stanford University; Shinkichi Eto. Tokyo University; Carol Gluck. Columbia University; Kenichi Hirano. Jochi University; Chihiro Hosoya. Hitotsubashi University; and Takafusa Nakamura. Tokyo University. MARCH


ranged from traditional historical narrative to quantitative content analysis, from close textual examination of diplomatic documents to biographical and psychological interpretation of decisions. This diversity forced each participant to justify his mode of analysis and prompted questions about the validity and relationship of one methodology to another. The group concluded that it would be impossible and unwise to try to construct a single analytical model. Participants decided, on the contrary, that methodological diversity would in itself prove more enlightening and instructive. The second set of issues was more clearly historical and addressed four very broad questions: What were the basic Japanese attitudes toward international politics? From what sources did they originate? How did they change and relate to one another? And, finally, to what degree were these attitudes uniquely Japanese? The participants readily identified ambiguity as the quality central to Japanese foreign policy attitudes. The papers described the tension that exists between the sense of being geographically and culturally peripheral and the conviction of centrality; betwen passivity and assertiveness; between insecurity and confidence; and between cooperation and competition. While it was difficult to identify the sources of this ambiguity, participants agreed that at least three major factors contributed to it. The first was the recurrent instability of Japan's international environment. The nation was caught in the nineteenth-century conflict between the traditional Chinese world order and the advancing Western international system. In the twentieth century Japan became enmeshed in the struggle among the forces of imperialism, nationalism, and communism. 11

This conflict and tension was bound to produce divergent attitudes toward Japan's role in international politics. The second source of ambiguity was intellectual and cultural. Notions of "modernization" and "East-West conflict" coexisted, as did ideas of universal progress and movement toward international conflict. Some participants stressed the cultural sources of this ambiguity. They pointed out the contrast between ideals of harmony and unity at home and the concept of competitive, balance-of-power politics prevalent in the international political system. All agreed that subjective feelings of individual leaders constituted a third major source of ambiguity. Several essays stressed the alternation of feelings of insecurity

and uneasiness wilh confidence and even arrogance in the minds of major statesmen, financiers, and military and naval leaders. How these attitudes and their sources related to one another was the subject of much discussion. The recurrence of certain very general notions, such as hostility to foreign opinions, concern for Japan's position in a real Or imagined international hierarchy, and determination to transcend the limitations imposed by foreign development, struck all who took part. The last question-whether or not, and to what degTee, the attitudes and patterns uncovered were uniquely Japanese-proved the most difficult of all. On this point conference participants, like other students of Japanese history and society, came to no definite conclusion.

PERSONNEL COUNCIL STAFF Louis Wolf Goodman joined the Council on a part-time basis on February 6, and will become a full-time staff member on September 1, 1974. His primary assignment is as staff, in association with others, of the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies and of the Dissertation Fellowship Selection Committee for the Latin American and Caribbean Program. Mr. Goodman received the B.A. degree from Dartmouth College in 1964 and the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in sociology from Northwestern University in 1966 and 1970, respectively. He began his research career as an undergraduate in 1963 as a research assistant for the Social Progress Trust Fund of the Inter-American Development Bank. As a graduate student, his research experience included work with Raymond W. Mack in research on social effects of advertising in the United States and with Robert F. Winch in research on marriage and the family. His dissertation research, on the impact of industrialization on Chilean blue-collar workers, was carried out during his tenure of a Foreign Area Fellowship under the joint program of the SSRC and ACLS, 1967-69. While a Fellow in Santiago, Chile, he also taught sociology and served as Survey Director for dissertation research at the Latin American Faculty of the Social Sciences. In 1969 Mr. Goodman joined the Yale University faculty as Assistant Professor of Sociology. He also has been associated with the Yale Law School as a Russell Sage Fellow and a Law and Modernization Fellow, 1970-72. In 1970-71 he was Field Director of the Comparative Sociology Summer Research Project in the Caribbean. Since 1972 he has been engaged in field research on decision making in multinational corporations in Latin America, partly supported by a grant from the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, and directing a study of the role of foreign medical graduates in the American medical system. Mr. Goodman is the author of chapters in two volumes, of which he is also coeditor: with Robert F. Winch, Selected Studies in Mm'riage and the Family (1968) and with Stanley 12

M. Davis, Wm'ken and Managers in Latin America (1972); he has published a number of articles in scholarly journals, RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS The Committee on Social Science Personnel-Karl E. Taeuber (chairman), John M. Darley, J. David Greenstone, Philip J. Greven, Jr., Paul Kay, Edward J. Mitchell, and Karen Spalding-at its meeting on March 22-23, 1974 voted to offer the following 12 appointments, 1 predoctoral and II postdoctoral: L. Douglas Dobson, Assistant Professor of Political Science, • Northern Illinois University, postdoctoral fellowship for study at the University of Chicago of mathematical models in the social sciences Catharine D. G. Faust, Ph.D. candidate in American civilization, University of Pennsylvania, postdoctoral fellmvship for training at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania in anthropological and sociological theories of the nature of belief systems John Michael Grey, Ph.D. candidate in psychology, Stanford University, postdoctoral fellowship for training at Stanford University and the University of California, San Diego, in research on the perceptual and cognitive processing of music Lawrence Hubert, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin, postdoctoral fellowship for advanced training in the techniques of cluster analysis and related methodologies Patricia Kelleher, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Wisconsin, predoctoral fellowship for training in demography and ecology Patricia Giles Leeds, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Wisconsin, postdoctoral fellowship for advanced training in mathematics, statistics, and economics David Lelyveld, Instructor in History, University of Minnesota, postdoctoral fellowship for training at the University of California, Berkeley, in psycho- and sociolinguistics Jonathan Pool, Assistant Professor of Political Science, State • University of New York at Stony Brook, postdoctoral fellowship for training at McGill University in research in cross-cultural psycholinguistics VOLUME




Judith Shapiro, Assistant Professor of An.thropolo&y,. University of Chicago, post?oct~ral fellows!up fo; tr~mm~ ~t the University of Cahforma, San DIego, m ImgUlstlc analysis, sociolinguistics, and ethnosemantics .-\nna Fay Vaughn-Cooke, Ph.D. candidate in sociolingui,tics, Georgetown University, postdoctoral fellowship for training at Boston University in psycholinguistics K. Lee Williams, Ph.D. candidate in developmental psychology, Harvard Unversity, postdoctoral fellowship for research training at Massachusetts Institute of Tec1mology in infant speech-related auditory perception Richard Wortman, Associate Professor of History, University of Chicago, postdoctoral fellowship for training in psychological and anthropological methods of research on child rearing and socialization GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES


GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY AND REPUBLICAN CHINA The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Albert Feuerwerker (chairman), Myron Cohen, Philip A. Kuhn, John Wilson Lewis, Dwight H. Perkins, James R. Townsend, Tang Tsou, and Ezra F. Vogel-at its meeting on March 1-2 awarded 13 grants for research:

Gordon A. Bennett, Assistant Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin, for research in the United States and Hong Kong on the politics of the Chinese finance-trade system Joseph W. Esherick, Assistant Professor of History, University of Oregon, for research on social change and rural revolution in modern China Susan Mann Jones, postdoctoral fellow in Chinese civilization, American Council of Learned Societies, for research Ronald H. Chilcote, Associate Professor of Political Science, on the Ningpo community at Shanghai, 1900-1925: the University of California, Riverside, for research in Corole of native-place ties in urban modernization nakry on Guine-Bissau: the impact of revolutionary strug- Arthur M. Kleinman, clinical fellow in psychiatry, Harvard gle on two African generations Medical School, for a comparative study in Taiwan and Hong Kong of the interaction between traditional and Jonathan A. Friedman, Lecturer in Social Anthropology, . University College London, for research in Madagascar modern medicine and psychiatry in contemporary Chinese societies on structural variation in Southeast Madagascar: ecology, economy, and social structure among the Antanosy Leo Ou-fan Lee, Assistant Professor of History and East Asian Studies, Princeton University, for psychohistorical Larry M. Hyman, Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Univerresearch in Japan on Lu Hstin sity of Southern California, for research in Bamenda on the development of the noun class and tone systems of the Julia C. Lin, Associate Professor of English, Ohio Univer"Semi-Bantu" languages in Western Cameroon sity, for research in Hong Kong on contemporary Chinese poetry: a critical evaluation Bennetta Jules-Rosette, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of California, San Diego, for research in Zam- Pichon P. Y. Loh, Professor of Political Science and East bia on a Christian community in transition Asian History, Upsala College, for research on aspects of Martin A. Klein, Associate Professor of History, University the politics of Chiang Kai-shek in relation to the political of Toronto, for research in Senegal on servile social reladevelopment of Kuomintang China tionships in French West Africa Harvey W. Nelsen, Assistant Professor, Department of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, University of South Florida, Paul E. Lovejoy, Assistant Professor of History, York UniTampa, for research in Hong Kong and Taiwan on the versity, for research in Nigeria on the economic growth of contemporary Chinese People's Liberation Army the central Sudan, 1700-1900 B. G. Martin, Associate Professor of History, Indiana Uni- John E. Schrecker, Associate Professor of History, Brandeis University, for research on the reform movement of 1898 versity, for research in Turkey, Iran, and Africa on Islam and its place in modern Chinese history in coastal East Africa John Pemberton, 3rd, Professor of Religion, Amherst Col- Huynh Sanh Thong, research fellow, East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, for research on the influence lege, for research in Nigeria on the myths, shrines, rituals, of Chinese leftist literature and of Maoism on Vietnamese and artifacts of the Yoruba cult of Eshu-Elegba in Ilawriters Orangun Paul Riesman, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Carle- Allen S. Whiting, Professor of Political Science, University ton College, for research in Upper Volta on early childof Michigan, for research in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Japan on the Chinese perception of, hood, personality, and values among West African former slaves and communication on, arms control Maynard W. Swanson, Associate Professor of History, Miami Silas H. L. Wu, Professor of History, Boston College, for University, for research in Great Britain and South Africa research on village life in North China under the comon the black leader A. W. G. Champion (1893- ): African mune system (renewal) urbanization and rising political consciousness Ka-che Yip, Assistant Professor of History, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, for research on nationalism Marina Tolmacheva (Ph.D. in African ethnography), Seattle, Washington, for research in Tanzania on the appliand revolution: student activism in China, 1920-28

The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Aristide R. Zolberg (chairman), Sara S. Berry, Charles S. Bird, Sekene Mody Cissoko, B. J. Dudley, James W. Fernandez, Jean Herskovits, William A. Shack, and Edward W. Soja-at its meeting on March 9-10, 1974 awarded 12 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara:


cation of antluopological models to the medieval ArabicSwahili historical sources Marcia W'right, Associate Professor of History, Columbia University, for research in Tanzania on the social history of the Central African Lakes Region, 1850-1900



GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE ECONOMY OF CHINA At a meeting on February 16 the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy-Dwight H. Perkins (chairman), Robert F. Dernberger, Albert Feuerwerker, John G. Gurley, and K. C. Yeh-made its recommendations to the Joint Committee on Contemporary China concerning grants to be made in the third year of this program. The Joint Committee approved awards to the following 6 scholars: Chu-yuan Cheng, Associate Professor of Economics, Ball State University, for research on the petroleum industry in China, 1949-65 Peter J. Golas, Assistant Professor of History, University of Denver, for an analysis of rates of taxation in southern Sung China compared with rates of inflation during the period 1127-1279 Robert M. Hartwell, Associate Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania, for research on sociopolitical change and economic progress in China, 950-1250 Ramon H. Myers, Professor of Economics and History, University of Miami, Coral Gables, for research on an evolving peasant economy: Manchuria from the late nineteenth century to 1934 William C. Snead, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hamilton College, for research in the United States on urban economics in the People's Republic of China Yeh-chien Wang, Associate Professor of History, Kent State University, for research on money and prices in China, 1644-1935 (renewal of grant made in 1971-72) GRANTS FOR JAPANESE STUDIES Under the program sponsored by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies (of the American Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Research Council), its Subcommittee on Grants for Research-Robert J. Smith (chairman), James T. Araki, John W. Hall, T. J. Pempel, Ann Waswo, and Kozo Yamamura-at its meeting on March 10 voted to make awards to 9 scholars: Scott C. Flanagan, Assistant Professor of Government, Florida State University, Tallahassee, for a comprehensive ana!ysis. and synth~si.s of s~rvey data on mass political behavlOr m Japan Gomt with Bradley M. Richardson) Roger F. Hackett, Professor of History, University of Michigan!.~or research in Japan and England on the military in Melp Japan and the role of the armed forces in the development of Meiji society Corn~lius Kiley, Assistant Professor of History, Villanova Umverslty, for research in Tokyo on the disintegration of the Japanese state in the ninth and tenth centuries Ellis S. Krauss, Assistant Professor of Political Science Western Washington State College, for research in Japan on urban politics in the prefecture of Kyoto Roy Andrew ¥ille:, Professor .of Asian Languages and Literature~ Um.versl~y of Washmg.ton, for research in Kyoto on the Identification and analYSIS of the Malaya-Polynesian substratum in the older stages of the Japanese language Ri~hard H. Minear, Associate Professor of History, UniverSity of Massachusetts, for research on the terms of political 14


discourse in eighteenth-century Japan: Ogyii Sorai (16661728) and Japanese Confucianism Shumpei Okamoto, Associate Professor of History, Temple Umversity, for research in Japan on Japanese ideas of China, 1911-31 Bradley M. Richardson, Associate Professor of Political Sci- • ence, Ohio State University, for a synthesis of Japanese political behavior research and a comparison of Japanese political behavior with Western models Goint with Scott C. Flanagan) Barbara Ruch, Associate Professor of Japanese Language ~nd Literature, University of Pennsylvania, for research m Europe and Japan on Japanese fiction in illustrated book and scroll form in the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries GRANTS FOR KOREAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on Korean Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Chong-Sik Lee (chairman), Yunshik Chang, Gari K. Ledyard, Chae-Jin Lee, Youngil Lim, and Edward W. Wagner-at its meeting on February 27 awarded 9 grants for research by individual scholars and 1 collaborative research grant: Kae H. Chung, Professor of Administration, Wichita State University, for research in Korea on human resource development programs and managerial characteristics Sungjoo Han, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, for research in Korea on social, economic, and political consequences of government policies in the rural areas of South Korea ~rel~ • Ch~n-W. Ki~, P.rofessor of Linguistics .and Speech, University of IllmOls at Urbana-Champaign, for research in Seoul on the genesis of tone in Middle Korean Sam-Woo Kim, Toronto, Canada, for research on Chinul and Korean S<'Sn Buddhism Young C. Kim, Associate Professor of Economics Northern Illinois University, for research in Seoul on' sources of growth of manufacturing output in South Korea, 1962-73 Byung <?h~l Koh, ~rofesso: of Political Science, University of Ilhn~)ls at Chicago Circle, for a comparative study in t~e Umted States, Seoul, and Tokyo of the foreign policies of North and South Korea Tong-Whan Park, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University, for research in Korea on two Koreas in Asian cC!nflict: the dynamics of arms race, deterrence, and coeXistence, 1945-72 Rich~rd J: Pearso~,. Associate ~rofessor of Anthropology, Umverslty of BntlSh Columbia, for research in Korea on man-land relationship in Korean prehistory Rob~rt F. Spencer, Professor of Anthropology, University of Mmnesota, for research in Seoul on the urban industrial worker in South Korea

Collaborative research grant Herbert R. Barringer, Professor of Sociology, University of Hawaii (on sabbatical leave), and Man-Gap Lee, Professor of Sociology, Seoul National University, for research in Korea on the differential effects of urban complexity and migration on the Korean family VOLU:\IE




GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, sponsored with the American Council of Learned SocietiesAfarvin Zonis (chairman), Janet Abu-Lughod, S. N. EisenWltadt, Ira M. Lapidus, K. Allin Luther, Serif Mardin, Nur Yalman, I. William Zartman, and Abdelkader Zghal-at its meeting on March 29-30 awarded 11 grants for research by individual scholars and 4 collaborative research grants:


Ernest T. Abdel-Massih, Associate Professor of Arabic and Berber, University of Michigan, for research in Egypt on Pan-Arabic: an emerging common spoken Arabic Constance Cronin, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Arizona, for research in Teheran on the private life styles of Iranian elites (renewal) Michael W. Dols, Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies, California State University, Hayward, for historical research in Egypt on Muslim response to social crises in the Middle East Michael M. J. Fischer, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies, Harvard University, for research in Iran on comparative urbanization Farhad Kazemi, Assistant Professor of Politics, New York University, for research in Iran on political, social, and economic consequences of rapid urbanization John G. Kennedy, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Beirut and North Yemen on the world view of Zaidi culture Majid Khadduri, Professor of Middle East Studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, for research in England, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt on the politics of Iraq since the Revolution of 1958 Ellen C. Micaud, Assistant Professor of Art History, University of Denver, for a comparative study in France,

Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia on architecture and urban planning practices in the Maghreb since independence Donald Quataert, postdoctoral scholar, Near Eastern Center, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Turkey and Germany on the Anatolian railroad: its economic and social impact on the cultivating classes of central Turkey, 1890-1908 Amal Vinogradov, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Queens College, City University of New York, for research in Baghdad on social entropy, ethnicity, and intergroup dynamics in Northern Iraq Gernot L. Windfuhr, Professor of Iranian Studies, University of Michigan, for research in Iran on linguistic dynamics: the Lakki dialeots

Collaborative resem'ch grants Aaron Bar-Adon, Professor of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin, and Chaim Rabin, Professor of Hebrew Language, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for research in Israel on linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of the Hebrew Revival, 18801920 Katharina Otto-Dorn, Professor of Art History, University of California, Los Angeles, and Goniil oney, Professor of History of Art, University of Ankara, for a comparative study in Iran of Persian and Anatolian Seljuk Mausolea Leslie L. Roos, Jr., Associate Professor of Business Administration, University of Manitoba, and Metin Heper, Assistant Professor of Administrative Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, for comparative and longitudinal studies in Turkey of its bureaucracy Alex Weingrod, Professor of Anthropology, Brandeis University, and Michael Gurevitch, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Television Research, University of Leeds, for research in Jerusalem on contact networks in the Israeli national elite



The Allied Occupation of Japan, 1945-1952: An Annotated Bibliography of Western-Language Materials, compiled and edited by Robert E. Ward and Frank Joseph Shulman, with the assistance of Masashi Nishihara and Mary Tobin Espey, for the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies and the University of Michigan Center for Japanese Studies. Chicago: American Library Association. March 1974. 889 pages. $50.00. Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems and Strategies, edited by Michael Armer and Allen D. Grimshaw. Product of a conference held by the Institute for Comparative Sociology, Bloomington, Indiana, with the assistance of the former Committee on Comparative Politics, April 8-9, 1971. New York: John Wiley & Sons, September 1973. 494 pages. $17.95. Computer Simulation in Human Population Studies, edited by Bennett Dyke and Jean W. MacCluer. Papers prepared for a conference sponsored by the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior, June 12-14, 1972. New York: Academic Press, February 1974. 539 pages. $16.00. Directory of Foreign A,'ea Fellows 1952-1972. November 1973. 422 pages. $3.00. Orders should be addressed to Social Science Research Council, 605 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016. MARCH


Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics, and the Departments of Anthropology and Linguistics and the Center for Intercultural Studies in Folklore and Oral History, University of Texas at Austin, April 2023, 1972. New York: Cambridge University Press, June 1974. c. 700 pages. Cloth, c. $28.50; paper, c. $11.95. The International Linkage of National Economic Models, edited by R. J. Ball. Sponsored by the Committee on Economic Stability. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, August 1973. 479 pages. $25.00. Japanese Economic Growth: Trend Acceleration in the Twentieth Century, by Kazushi Ohkawa and Henry Rosovsky. Report on a study initiated under the auspices of the former Committee on Economic Growth. Stanford: Stanford University Press, August 1973. 346 pages. $15.00. Langual$e and Area Studies Review, by Richard D. Lambert. Amencan Academy of Political and Social Science Monograph 17. Final report on the review sponsored by the Social Science Research Council. October 1973. 509 pages . $4.00 to individuals; $5.00 to institutions. Orders should be addressed to American Academy of Political and Social Science, 3937 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa, 19104. 15

Language Attitudes: CU1Tent Trends and Pmspects, edited by Roger W. Shuy and Ralph W. Fasold. Product of workshops at the Conference on Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects, jointly sponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics and Georgetown University, March 16-18, 1972. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 206 pages. $3.50. Language Planning: Cunent Issues and Research, edited by Joan Rubin and Roger W. Shuy. Product of workshops at the Conference on Sociolinguistics (see preceding title). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 121 pages. $2.95. Modem Chinese Societ,,: An Analytical Bibliography. 3 volumes. Prepared under the auspices of the former Subcommittee on Research on Chinese Society, Joint Committee on Contemporary China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, January 1974: Vol. 1. Publications in Westem Languages, 1644-1972, edited by G. William Skinner. 880 pages. $35.00. Vol. 2. Publications in Chinese, 1644-1969, edited by G. William Skinner and Winston Hsieh. 877 pages. $38.00. Vol. 3. Publications in Japanese, 1644-1971, edited by G. William Skinner and Shigeaki Tomita. 600 pages. $32.00. Social Change and Politics in Ttt1"key: A StructttralHistorical Analysis, by Kemal H. Karpat and others. Prod-

uct of a conference on social growth and democracy in Turkey, cosponsored by the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, and the Department of Politics, New York University, May 27-29, 1965. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973 [1974]. 384 pages. Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Pmspects, Report the Twenty-Third Annual Round Table Meeting Linguistics and Language Studies, edited by Roger . Shuy. Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 25. Papers of the conference jointly sponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics and Georgetown University, March 16-18, 1972. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 360 pages. $4.50. Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences, edited by Arthur S. Goldberger and Otis Dudley Duncan. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Social Science Research Council and the Social Systems Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, November 12-16, 1970. New York: Seminar Press, July 1973. 374 pages. $15.95. The Traditional Artist in African Societies, edited by Warren L. d' Azevedo. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Joint Committee on African Studies, Indiana University, and the University of Nevada Desert Research Institute, May 28-30, 1965. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973. 478 pages. $16.00.


AND FOREIGN SCHOLARS Applications will be accepted this spring for more than 550 university lecturing and advanced research awards during 1975-76 in over 75 countries under the senior FulbrightHays Program, the Council for International Exchange of Scholars (formerly the Committee on International Exchange of Persons) announced recently. Specialists in the sciences who are U.S. citizens and have a doctorate or college teaching experience are invited to indicate their interest in an award by completing a simple registration form, available on request from the Senior Fulbright-Hays Program, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418. Registrants will receive a detailed announcement of the 1975-76 program in April. July I, 1974 is the deadline for applying for research awards and it is also the suggested date for filing for lectureships.

Each year Fulbright-Hays agencies abroad forward to t h . Council for International Exchange of Scholars applicatiow of senior foreign scholars who are interested in remunerative appointments for lecturing and postdoctoral research at American colleges or universities for temporary periods. The CIES would be pleased to receive at any time information regarding appointments available at American educational institutions for foreign scholars for periods of three months to one year. A directory of senior Fulbright-Hays foreign scholars who are in the United States this academic year is available on request. A number of these scholars would welcome invitations to give lectures or to participate in special conferences under the sponsorship of academic institutions and educational organizations.






N.Y .


IIlcorporated ill the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences Directors, 1974:









Officers and Staff:







Financial Secretary;



Busilless Mallager;


Items Vol. 28 No. 1 (1974)  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you