SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
VOLUME 34 â€˘ NUMBER 3/4 â€˘ December 1980 605 THIRD AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016
Lawrence R. Klein Wins Nobel Prize: Council Board Member and Founder of Project LINK THE ANNOUNCEMENT ON OCTOBER 15 that the 1980 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science had been given to Lawrence R. Klein was deeply gratifying to members of the Council. Mr. Klein, who is Benjamin Franklin professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, held two SSRC research training fellowships: the first, in 1945-46, "for research training in economic theory through study of the formulation of econometric business cycle theories" at the Cowles Commission (Chicago) and the second, in 1947-48, "for the study of economic planning" in Oslo, Norway. His subsequent involvement with the Council has included more than 20 years of continuous service on Council committees. The prize was awarded to Mr. Klein in part for his work with Project LINK, which he initiated in 1968 and has guided since its inception. Sponsored by the Council through its Committee on Economic Stability and Growth (1959- ), Project LINK is an extraordinary venture in international scholarly collaboration, drawing on intellectual resources and local expertise from around the world. It involves the integration of the econometric models of more than 20 industrialized countries (eight of which are socialist countries)
Dear ReaderThe June 1980 issue of Items contained a questionnaire for use in the revision of our mailing list. If you did not return the questionnaire and wish to continue to receive Items, please fill out and return the form on the last page of this issue. The Editor
At a party held in his honor, Mr. Klein noted that the colored balloons are an example of "real inflation."
and of four regional models-for Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The LINK system is therefore global in scope and virtually complete in its geographical coverage. Reports on the progress of LINK activities have been published more or less annually in Items since 1969, authored either by Mr. Klein or by Bert G. Hickman, Stanford University, who has been chairman of the Committee on Economic Stability and Growth since 1962 and is also a principal investigator on Project LINK. In announcing the award, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences cited the importance of Mr. Klein's work "for the creation of economic models and their application to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies." It acknowledged in particular the worldwide importance both of the Brookings-SSRC Project, which aimed in the 1960s at forecasting the short-term development of the American economy, and more recently of Project LINK, which for more than a decade has coordinated the maintenance and improvement of econometric models around the world. Mr. Klein received the B.A. from the University of California in 1942 and the Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1944. In addition to occupying a number of research posts, he taught at the University of Michigan and at Oxford before joining the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania in 1958. His service to the Council began in 1959, when he was appointed as a founding member of the Committee on Economic Stability (enlarged to Economic Stability and Growth in 1974). In addition to his continuing involvement in the work of this committee, he has served for six years as a member of the
CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE 49 50 54 57 58 60
66 70 71
Lawrence R. Klein Wins Nobel Prize: Council Board Ylember and Founder of Project LINK The Council's International Program-Kelllleth Prewitt The Humanities and the Social Sciences: A Symposium-David L. Szantoll The Humanities and Social Sciences in China: Report of a Fact-finding Trip Proposed Reorganization of the National Science Foundation Current Activities at the Council -New directors and officers -New staff members -Cognitive Research -Biosocial Perspectives on Parenting -Development, Giftedness, and the Learning Process -Liaison with economists in China -Dissertation fellowships in employment and training -Life-Course Perspectives on Middle and Old Age Newly-issued Council Publications Other Recent Publications: A Selection Readership Questionnaire -To be cut, folded, and mailed
Council's board of directors, from 1971 to 1976. Recently, he has been appointed a member of the new Committee on United States-China Economics Liaison, which is sponsored jointly by the Council and the American Economic Association. The Council has derived great benefit from its association with Mr. Klein during the past 35 years and from his deep commitment to the improvement of empirical economic models and their applications in the forecasting of world economic conditions. On the occasion of his receiving the 1980 Nobel Prize, the Council 'is proud to acknowledge its debt to him. 0
The Council's International Program by Kenneth Prewitt* PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II, foreign area studies, in the sense in which the term is now used, were virtually nonexistent in the social sciences in the United States. So, too, the Council's internationally-related activities were few and for the most part peripheral to the Council's main interests. Starting with the appointment of a Committee on World Regions in 1943, however, the Council has increasingly given attention to encouraging research on societies and cultures outside of the United States. 1 During the past year, as part of the Council's on50
going evaluation of its international activities, the programs of the 10 geographically focused Council committees that are jointly sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies underwent extensive review by an Ad Hoc Working Group on
* The author, a political scientist, has been president of the Council since March 1979. I Robert E. Ward and Bryce Wood, "Foreign Area Studies and the Social Science Research Council," Items, 28(4), 53-58 (December 1974). VOLUME
Joint Area Committees of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council, 1980-81 Committee African Studies, 1960-
Contemporary China, 1959Eastern Europe, 1971Japanese Studies, 1967Korean Studies, 1967Latin American Studies, 1959Near and Middle East, 1959South Asia, 1970Southeast Asia, 1976Western Europe, 1975-
Chairman John M. Janzen, University of Kansas Michel C. Oksenberg, University of Michigan Dean S. Worth, . U,niversity of California, Los Angeles Robert E. Cole, University of Michigan Chae-Jin Lee, University of Kansas Albert Fishlow, Yale University Robert J. Lapham, National Research Council Myron Weiner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology James C. Scott, Yale University Charles S. Maier, Duke University
Staff Martha A. Gephart Sophie Sa Jason H . Parker, American Council of Learned Societies Ronald Aqua Ronald Aqua Geo!ge Reid Andrews ~
Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr. David L. Szanton David L. Szanton Robert A. Gates
rooted knowledge essential for building a more comparative social science. In addition, they will continue to serve as key resources for identifying scholars abroad who are undertaking important research. Collectively, these roles correspond to what has commonly been termed "field development." The need for field development remains, but in the context of the achievements of past decades and current limits on available resources, the tasks of field development must be more carefully defined. Unlike the situation during the 1950s and 1960s, when area studies programs were established in the United States and the size of the scholarly community with the training and research experience necessary The future of the joint area committees to analyze social, political, and economic phenomena While the Council's review this past year set some elsewhere in the world was very small, it is no longer new directions for its international program, it did true that any additional suppo.rt for such training and not do so at the expense of the joint committee research seems worthwhile. structure. Indeed, given the growing complexity of international studies in the 1980s, the joint commit2 The members of the committee were Kenneth Prewitt, Social tees now take on added importance. They must con- Science Research Council (chairman); Clifford Geertz, Institute tinue to assess the state of their fields, identifying for Advanced Study (Princeton, New Jersey); H. Field Haviland, both opportunities for building upon scholarly com- Jr., Tufts University; Michael Piore, Massachusetts Institute of petence and gaps and weaknesses which require spe- Technology; and John M. Thompson, American Universities Field Staff (Hanover, New Hampshire); David L. Sills and David cial attention. Through their continued support of L. Szanton, Social Science Research Council, and Jason H. Parker advanced research training and individual research, and Gordon B. Turner, American Council of Learned Societies, they will generate the historically and culturally staff. the International Program,2 by the Council's Committee on Problems and Policy, and by the joint committees themselves. Colleagues in the foundations were also asked to share their experience and their wisdom. The review produced two general conclusions. First, the joint committees remain a unique resource for advancing social science and humanistic research, although their frames of reference are shifting. Second, the Council's international program should be a good deal more than a mere summation of the joint committees activities.
In the context of the Council's objectives, important questions must now be addressed concerning the content and quality of international research in the United States. Some areas of the world have been more intensively studied than others. Some regions and countries have been examined primarily from humanistic viewpoints. In others, social science research has predominated. At the same time, the various disciplines do not contribute equally to scholarship on the different world regions and the cultural, social, political, and economic experience of various regions is not being equally incorporated into the theories of the disciplines. Moreover, we must also note that traditional disciplinary labels often do not adequately describe the content of what is being investigated. Thus, while there are few economists working on sub-Saharan Africa, there are many studies under way with important economic content. Anthropologists investigate local markets, historians trace trade routes, political scientists study multinational corporations, and psychologists study achievement motivation. The understanding of economic behavior and practices in Africa will benefit from these studies just as it will from research conducted by economists. This last point underscores the complexity of the field development task. In addition, with the growth of university-based area study centers, large-scale government funding of overseas research, professional associations devoted to international studies, and in some fields more internationally-experienced researchers than academic institutions can absorb, the comparatively limited resources available to the joint committees call into question the need to continue field development as historically understood. Focused intellectual rationales, on a committee-by-committee basis, have replaced the traditional theory of "more is better" as the justification for the joint committee structure. The review of the Council's international program concluded that there are critical intellectual tasks that can be best, perhaps only, accomplished through the joint committees. These tasks include bringing to bear local knowledge on international and comparative questions , understanding the boundary conditions of social processes and behavior, moving ideas (and people) across regional and disciplinary lines, and the continuing task of integrating disciplinary scholarship with area studies. Consensus about broad principles and shared tasks notwithstanding, no simple formula expresses in programmatic terms the intellectual rationale for each \ joint committee. Given the diversity of the world 52
areas studied, the variable quality and quantity of scholarship directed at them, the erratic intrusion of political factors into the research environment, the existence of alternate funding sources, the interests of other academic groups, and the problems of research access, no single mandate can direct the work of all the joint committees. The diversity can be turned to an advantage, not unlike the advantage of federalism in a political system that encourages experiments in one state before they are adopted elsewhere. The joint committees differ in how they approach research planning and the awards program, ranging from team research to an emphasis on dissertation awards, from major international conferences on disciplinary themes to research planning which builds self-consciously on indigenous intellectual systems. Just as, in the past, certain innovations parented in one joint committee have diffused to committees concerned with other regions of the world, some of the many committeespecific innovations will no doubt appear in other committees' programs in the years to come.
Other Council international programs As noted, the Council's foreign area committees have been responsible for most of its international activities. While these committees have fostered collaboration between foreign area specialists in the United States and scholars from the area being investigated, only rarely have they brought together researchers working on similar problems in several different areas. As a result, the joint committees remain relatively isolated from each other, and the work of a particular committee is usually not informed and challenged by that of others. Thus, although the area committees generate the kind of research-rooted in history and culture and undertaken from multidisciplinary perspectives-that must be the basis of a truly comparative social science, the Council has not yet taken full advantage of the creative role the committees can play in facilitating cross-national comparisons. This is not to say that the international programs of the Council are not already broader than what is reflected in the area committee projects. Several of the research-planning committees of the Council are international in composition and activities. The Committee on Life-Course Perspectives on Middle and Old Age (1977- ), for example, currently has three European members and is sponsoring two international conferences during the next two years. The Advisory and Planning Committee on Social InVOLUME
of variations among nations in the role and function of the social sciences, and therefore in the organization of research. University-based social science is not everywhere autonomous as it is in the United States. And the balance between short-term research, focused on social problems, and long-term autonomous research on disciplinary questions, varies greatly from one society to another. Colleagues abroad, especially those in less developed nations where the social sciComparative perspectives and the study of transnational phenomena ences are also less developed, are often pressed into the service of governments struggling with a variety Several Council activities encourage cross-national of social problems. Contract and consultancy research comparisons of phenomena occurring under difpredominate. ferent cultural and historical conditions. Ad hoc These simple facts are often overlooked in efforts meetings have examined comparative perspectives on a variety of topics: gender and society, the biosocial to stimulate international collaboration. Because disciplinary and policy research draw from the same bases of parenting and offspring development, pool of research problems and work with similar stratification in advanced industrial societies, and labels, there appears to be less difference in apchildhood socialization and family studies. proach, methodology, and analysis than is in fact the Earlier ad hoc meetings on the nature of ethnic case. Collaboration across national boundaries is difidentity and the mobilization of ethnic grou ps led to ficult under the best of circumstances. It certainly will the appointment of the Council's Committee on falter if U.S. scholars misunderstand what their colEthnicity (1977). leagues elsewhere are about. The Council, therefore, Very little attention has been given thus far in the will take greater advantage of its knowledge of scholCouncil's international program to the study of arly activities in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Midtransnational phenomena. These public and private dle East, and Europe; it will find ways to interpret interrelationships that cross national boundaries across national boundaries the kinds of research tak(labor migration, food distribution, and international ing place, and it will identify those areas in which movements of capital are all examples) become incollaboration is likely to be more effective. creasingly important as the interdependence of the modern world system grows. We can no longer understand economic, social, and political phenomena International Research Opportunities Board within societies without appreciating the constraints An additional consequence of the review this past and opportunities created by a society's position in year has been the Council's leadership in bringing transnational capital and labor markets, or by the into being the International Research Opportunities impact of multinational organizations and Board (IROB) in order to facilitate coordination transnational corporations. among the various national groups which sponsor worldwide, multiarea, and single country or region research grant programs in the social sciences, International collaboration humanities, and natural sciences. The need for such To help provide this understanding, the Council an organization has been expressed many times, most intends to playa more active role in facilitating the recently in a Ford Foundation-National Endowment assimilation of knowledge generated abroad by pro- for the Humanities review of research opportunities moting collaboration with and among the scholars in international studies. The report concluded that who produce that knowledge. It will also direct "much of what is necessary to sustain and improve the greater attention to conceptual systems and theoreti- system is presently available, but is diminished in efcal perspectives that challenge the orthodoxies of the fectiveness by the absence of coordination and comdominant approaches. And it will seek to incorporate, mon information of what others are doing. The curas peers, not only European social scientists but schol- rent imbalance in supply and demand of research ars from areas in which the so.cial sciences are rela- opportunities, the imminent extinction of a few subtively new, thereby contributing to the development fields, the differential vigor of various regional and maintenance of local scholarly competence. studies, all would be better avoided, accommodated, In so doing, the Council recognizes the importance or redressed if a national organization could counsel DECEMBER 1980 53
dicators (1972- ) has had foreign members from its inception, and nearly all of the conferences organized by the Center have included scholars from outside the United States. Indeed, most Council committees include foreign scholars as members or major participants in their activities.
and inform."3 Background papers prepared for the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies came to similar conclusions, and advanced similar recommendations. The initial purpose of IROB is to review, assess, and help rationalize present international research opportunities in the social sciences and humanities. It will examine the role and balance among the various disciplines, problems of access, and opportunities for drawing upon or collaborating with local research communities. It will also attempt to delineate the types of research (classical, historical, contemporary socioeconomic, political, etc.) currently being conducted, as well as the research gaps, on the particular countries and regions. Finally, IROB will review the present and potential roles of the several U.S.-funded overseas advanced research and training centers. While the immediate focus of its activities will be the availability and distribution of international research opportunities in the social sciences and humanities, IROB will also explore how best to include the natu-
ral sciences, the pr~fessions, and academic exchanges more generally. The Council has received support for IROB for' a two-year period from the Exxon Educational Foundation. When the membership of the-B"oa'rd has been completed, an announcement will appear in Items.
Studies of American society
The major purpose of area studies in the United States has been to increase our knowledge of other countries; this purpose also applies to the current international program of the Council. However, research on other parts of the world has often given American scholars new perspectives on the character and dynamics of our own society. In order to accelerate the application of questions, methods, and findings derived from research elsewhere in the world, the Council now hopes to appoint and find funding for a committee composed of foreign scholars (hence the informal designation, "the Tocqueveille Committee"), which would encourage fresh analyses of American society by mature researchers from other 3 Elinor G. Barber and Warren Bchman, with the assistance of countries. Such a committee could mark another imCreighton Peet and Toby Ditz, International Studies Review: A Staff portant step towards the genuine internationalization Study. A joint publication of the Ford Foundation and the Na0 tional Endowment for the Humanities. September 1979, p. 113. of the Council's program.
The Humanities and the Social Sciences: A Symposium 'by David L. Szanton*
A GROWING DISENCHANTMENT among social scientists with the explanatory adequacy of models borrowed from the natural sciences accounts at least in part for the renewed interest in the intellectual concerns and interpretive methods traditionally associated with the humanities. Drawing on the intellectual traditions embedded in the Council's close association with the American Council of Learned Societies, and especially on research activities parented by the joint committees of the two Councils-which have long included both social scientists and humanists-the Council is now exploring more general ways of expanding the role of the intellectual concerns and interpretive methods of humanistic scholarship.
The time is opportune, for there is within the social sciences a new interest the analytical approaches utilized in literary criticism, linguistics, philosophy, religion, and hermeneutics. In the hope of discovering ways to encourage such interests, the Council convened an all-day symposium on the humanities and the social sciences at the October 2-5, 1980 meeting of its Committee on Problems and Policy. The discussion at the symposium, and the larger concerns it was designed to explore, was based upon the view that the world of individual and social experience is not a "natural" object, but is rather a human construction. It is best understood as a world of historically developed categories and evaluations drawn from a reservoir of variously conscious and uncon* The author, an anthropologist, serves at the Council as staff scious images, metaphors, narratives, and texts. In of the joint committees on South Asia and Southeast Asia. this view, understandings of one's own life, of that of 54
another person, or of larger social groups-from families and communities to nation-states and world systems-derive from complex interpretations, rarely conscious and articulated, which edit and bring some order to incoming perceptions. A specific culture or society can be thought of as a group of persons which to a large degree shares a common set of these definitions and interpretations. The social sciences have long taken the systematic analysis of individual and social experience as their central concern, particularly the mutual interaction of the individual and social groups. However, it should be obvious that no single model or approach is likely to be adequate even to approximate a fully satisfactory understanding given the complexity of the elements involved--conscious and unconscious, verbal and behavioral, conceptual and emotional, habitual and inte.ntional. Nonetheless, each of the social science disciplines has tended to focus on particular elements or domains of individual or social experience-often treating them as though they were the central sources of meaning-and in the process has slighted other elements and domains (and types of approaches to them) of potentially comparable importance. In recent years, growing numbers of social scientists have sensed that important aspects of human and social experience remain beyond the reach of their traditional methods and models. At the same time, there are humanistic studies such as Paul Fussell's The Great War and 路Modern Memory (1975), which utilizes traditional techniques of historical and literary analysis of the letters of English soldiers and officers during World War I to illuminate the changing conceptions of individual, social, and political existence generated by the war. More generally, Clifford Geertz in his 1980 American Scholar article, "Blurred Genres," points to the current burgeoning of new types of social science analysis, focusing particularly on the rapid growth of "game," "drama," and "text" as metaphors for the interpretation of social and cultural phenomena. The Council symposium was planned in order to take a closer look at some specific instances of such nontraditional approaches to social analysis, and to provide a sense of the possibilities for future research planning activities in this area. The symposium, chaired by Mr. Geertz, began with a description by Bernard S. Cohn, an anthropologist-historian at the University of Chicago, and Thomas R. Metcalf, a historian at the University of California, Berkeley, of their current efforts to develop an interpretive approach to the study of colDECEMBER
onialism. Drawing on their own research on British India and South Africa, as well as that of scholars working on other parts of the world, they are examining the interrelationship of political power and cultural systems, particularly as revealed by the construction of symbols and categories by colonial regimes as means of legitimating their possessions to themselves, to the people dominated, and to their own countrymen at home. They argue that, more than military force, it was the ability of the colonial authorities to define social reality and social relationships through the imposition of, for example, legal codes, tax systems, census categories, political rituals, architectural forms, and city planning--changes that gave them power over the indigenous population. The process, however, was by no means one way: these new categories and concepts deeply shaped the attitudes of the colonial rulers themselves, their understanding of the nature of the social world, and their special role within it. Indeed, the colonial period fixed the meaning-and the political "reality"-of many terms and concepts, such as tribe, race, caste, primitive, illiterate, and modern, which are utilized today both in common speech and in the social sciences. Andrew M. Greeley, University of Arizona, and William G. McCready, National Opinion Research Center, both sociologists with long experience in survey research, described their efforts to develop a new approach to the sociology of religion. They began their research with a commitment to quantitative analysis but were dissatisfied with the quality of the data generated by ordinary survey questionnaires for understanding the nature of religious experience. Noting that people often tell stories (narratives, parables) when they wish to communicate or explain their deepest sentiments, they are now turning to the systematic analysis of these essentially literary forms to investigate the personal meaning of, and the emotional commitments to, such images as "God," "Jesus," "Mary," and "Heaven." These data are then related to various personal characteristics, to church attendance, to religious practices, and to family behavior and sexual attitudes to obtain a fuller understanding of the religious imagination and the "experience of grace." Linguist-anthropologist Alton Becker, University of Michigan, focused attention on the often radically different ways that different languages create coherences, that is, both imbue terms with meaning and logically structure the relations of terms to each other. Thus, for example, not only does English contain concepts that are different from those in Burmese, but English creates cohesion largely by emphasizing 55
linear movement through time, utilizing a tense sys- priorities and value structures people utilize to deal tem in which utterances must be clearly marked and with the multiple sources of meaning in their lives. related: past, present, and future. In contrast, the The four presentations generated a lively discusBurmese language, and indeed many Southeast Asian sion of substantive and theoretical issues, as well as systems of thought, structure discourse and knowledge possible programmatic opportunities. In different in terms of a potent central figure (a temple, a per- ways, all four presentations focused on the meaning son, an idea, a god) and its peripheries (north, south, of personal and social phenomena for the individual. east, west). In effect, every language has its own logic. All argued for more self-conscious attention to the Because of fundamental differences in the ways that assumptions underlying the common language and languages structure meaning, translation from one to categories of the social sciences, since by their freanother is often extremely difficult and demands a quently impatient search for generalizations, social very substantial knowledge of the connotations or scientists may construct ill-fitting models of human "prior texts" which resonate below the surface and experience. Several areas were suggested for future Council give texture and nuance to human expression. While certain English language terms and ideas are readily attention, two of which are now being actively extranslatable, many, often the seemingly simplest ones, plored. One concerns the nature and status of persuch as the verb "to be," carry an enormous and very sonal testimony. What people say or write about their particularistic cultural baggage without easy equiva- own experience and feelings often becomes raw malences in other languages or systems of thought. terial, or "data," for both social scientists and Becker suggested the complexity of the problem by humanists. Yet such data are almost always context simply raising the issue of what a speaker of Old sensitive, subject to the vagaries of historical moment, Javanese would need to know about 19th century personal mood and motivation, and communicative New England life and thought in order to be able to competence. In consequence, there is always uncerunderstand this sentence by Ralph Waldo Emerson: tainty as to what the testimony is evidence for. Critical assumptions concerning the meaning and "Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my utility of personal testimony underlie techniques used thought any occurrence of special good fortune, I to elicit, record, analyze, and interpret verbal statehave enjoyed a perfect exhilaration." Becker's pres- ments in, for example, conducting national opinion entation made it painfully clear that the categories of surveys, preparing ethnographies, or composing thought and analysis which we casually take as natu- biographies. How do these assumptions contribute to ral, universal, or representing the "real" world are in the shape of the testimony itself and influence the fact very often highly idiosyncratic and historically interpretive process? To what extent are different methods able to penetrate the intentions or the affecdetermined. Wendy O'Flaherty, a historian of religion at the tive and cognitive commitments of the informant? University of Chicago with a long standing interest in What are the particular strengths and limitations of comparative and South Asian mythology, described evidence derived from different testimonial sources her plans for a new project on the relationship be- and from varying methods for the analysis and intween science and myth as distinctive, but culturally terpretation of that testimony? constructed, ways of knowing. She is particularly conThese are hardly new questions, but technological cerned with how people who believe that a hard line advances for recording and storing data in the divides the two realms deal with the apparent con- humanities and social sciences since the 1940s (inflicts between science and myths in their own lives. As cluding compact audio and video recording devices, working material, she is drawing on various types of computer programs for use in content analysis, and narratives: stories from both Western and South the compilation of oral histories and archives of surAsian literature of people who perceive themselves as vey data), suggest that a fresh exploration of them is having crossed a barrier from the "real" world of needed.) Second, efforts to understand human behavior can science and common sense into a clearly mythic realm; personal accounts of physical scientists who be obstructed by both language structures and the develop strong religious convictions; and psychiatric I A starting point for this project might be three Council publipatients for whom powerful images create realities in cations of an earlier period: John Dollard, Criteria for the Life conflict with their own common sense knowledge. By History (1935); Gordon W. Allport, The Use of Personal Documents in analyzing the participants own reactions to and ex- Psychological Science (1942); and Louis Gottschalk et aI., The Use of planations of these events, she hopes to clarify the Personal Documents in History, Anthropology, and Sociology (1945). 56
particular substantive categories that constitute popularly perceived social realities and formally constructed social analyses. Our language, as all languages, lends a sense of concrete and natural reality to the cultural constructions (institutions, value systems, rituals) by which we order and evaluate our lives. Nevertheless, comparative, historical, and philosophical inquiry all suggest that these constructions are just that-they are neither obvious nor "natural." Furthermore, the social sciences have a long-standing tradition of inventing, formally defining, or reifying abstract notions (peasant, feudalism, ethnicity, scripts, matrifocal family, world system) which often then contributes to their becoming operational social and political realities in the everyday world. Only rarely, however, have social scientists self-consciously examined either the internal logic of their language or the specific historical and political origins of the concepts and categories they use to define and to analyze social realities. In order to clarify the complex interaction between
social experience and systematic efforts to describe and interpret social experience, a new confluence of epistemology, linguistics, intellectual history, and the political sociology of knowledge needs to be encouraged. I n effect, we need a new metalanguage with which to examine critically the concepts, genres, and poetics of social analysis. The issues surrounding personal testimony, language, and categorization are fundamental to both the hu manities and the social sciences. Yet most of the work on these essentially introspective, self-critical issues, especially in the social sciences, tends to be at the margins of the disciplines. Over the coming years, the Council will attempt to organize a series of activities to help synthesize current efforts and encourage new research and writing in these areas. By drawing upon the traditional concerns of the humanities for the close description and the integrity and interpretation of the particular, it may be possible to construct more powerful and sensitive generalizations of individual and social experience. D
"If any li ne can be drawn between the era of uncritical and the era of the critical use of personal documents, the publication of the research of Thomas and Znaniecki in 1920 marks the date. T here are, to be sure, plenty of instances of uncritical use down to the present day; but it was unquestionably the availability of The Polish Peasant that began to turn the attention of sociologists-and somewhat later of psychologists-to the methodological problems involved." -Gordon W. Allport, 1942* * The Use of Personal DOCllmellts in Psychological Science. SSRC Bulletin 49. pages 18-19.
The Humanities and Social Sciences in China: Report of a Fact-finding Trip AT THE END OF DECEMBER 1979, 13 American scholars representing both the humanities and social sciences embarked on a three-week visit to China. The delegation consisted of members of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China aCCC) and the Committee on Studies of Chinese Civilization (CSCC) of the American Council of Learned Societies, and the trip was sponsored by the two Councils. The trip was the culmination of an initiative begun in December 1978, when at a meeting of the Joint Committee's Subcommittee on Field Research it was decided to recommend that a fact-finding delegation be sent to China in order to gather information about research and scholarship in Chinese social sciences DECEMBlR
and humanities. In addition to learning about the present state of and future plans for scholarly research in these areas, the purposes of the visit were to explore possibilities for collaboration and exchange between Chinese and American scholars, acquaint Chinese scholars with the nature of United States research on China, and establish contacts with Chinese scholars with an eye toward facilitating fu ture American research in China. Members of the delegation traveled to seven cities: Beijing, Chengdu, Nanjing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Suzhou, and Tianjin. In each city, they met with representatives of local institutes of philosophy and social science; visited universities, libraries, and archives; 57
and spoke with prominent scholars and researchers in the various disciplines represented by the delegation members. The delegation found that although there has been a lively revival in all aspects of Chinese intellectual life since 1976, the extent of the revival varies greatly by discipline and by institution. For example, while numerous new projects are being started and a variety of books and articles has been published in the humanities, the social sciences have been much slower to develop because of historically inadequate material resources, a scarcity of trained personnel (except in economics), and perhaps greater caution on the part of scholars engaged in areas of study that are still viewed by many as "bourgeois" and therefore "tainted." So, too, while a number of universities have vigorous programs and departments in history, there are few departments of sociology in China, and those that exist are still in the early stages of development. Besides talking to their Chinese counterparts, members of the路 delegation also sought out American scholars studying and doing research in China to elicit from them information about their experiences in China in gaining access to libraries and research materials and the kinds of cooperation they had received from Chinese at various levels and institutions. Each delegation member left China with some degree of optimism about recent developments in his or her field; however, each was also cautious about predicting the course for the future both in terms of what
can be achieved by the Chinese and what Western scholars can hope to accomplish in China. A more complete overview of the current state of intellectual activity in China and detailed descriptions of the prospects for individual disciplines are available in the published report of the delegation (see pages 66-67, below). The delegation was cochaired by Donald J. Munro (U niversity of Michigan), chairman of the CSCC, and by Burton Pasternak (Hunter College), then chairman of JCCC. Other members were Hok-Iam Chan (University of Washington), Patrick D. Hanan (Harvard University) and Jason H. Parker (staff, ACLS), representing the CSCC; Cyril Birch (University of California, Berkeley), Paul A. Cohen (Wellesley College), Robert F. Dernberger (University of Michigan), Merle Goldman (Boston University), Victor H. Li (Stanford University), Martin K. Whyte (University of Michigan), and Anne F. Thurston (then staff, SSRC), representing the JCCC; and Thomas P. Bernstein (Columbia University). . The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, whose representatives had toured the United States in April and May 1979, and who had been hosted by the Council during their week's stay in New York, served as sponsor for the delegation in China. The Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China provided its good offices in planning and organizing the visit. 0
Proposed Reorganization of the National Science Foundation IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST from the National Science Foundation, the Council served as host on September 12, 1980 to a meeting between representatives of the social science community and the senior staff of the National Science Foundation. Also in attendance was a member of the National Science Board, Ernestine Friedl, an anthropologist at Duke University. The purpose of the ad hoc meeting was for the Foundation representatives present to learn the views of social scientists about the establishment of a new behavioral and social science directorate. The proposed directorate would include (1) the present Division 0f Social and Economic Science and possibly a portion of the present Division of Behavioral and Neural Sciences; (2) a number of applied research 58
programs from the Division of Applied Research; and (3) the newly-funded decision and management sciences. Presumably, it would mean that a social scientist would become its director, and thus an assistant director of the Foundation. The morning session of the all-day meeting was largely devoted to a presentation by the staff of the Foundation-a presentation that outlined some problems in the present organizational structure and the advantages and disadvantages of various proposed structural changes. In the afternoon, the social scientists present directed questions to the Foundation staff and expressed views of their own as well as those of their disciplines and organizations. The recurrent theme of the meeting was enVOLUME
thusiasm over the prospects for a new directorate of the behavioral and social sciences. It was felt, first of all, that a directorate would provide needed visibility for the social sciences, a visibility that would lead to enhanced status and increased funding. (It was also suggested that visibility might make the social sciences more vulnerable to budget cutting.) Second, it was felt that the unification of the social sciences within a directorate would contribute to the organization and structuring of the field itself. ("A directorate would help unify the social sciences!," one enthusiastic participant noted.) Third, the present organization is confusing to social scientists, who sometimes don't know the appropriate unit to submit a grant application to, or with which to discuss a research interest. The structuring that would accompany the establishment of a directorate would go far toward improving this situation. There was also recognition that what to include or exclude in a new directorate is a difficult issue, especially as it affects the present Division of Behavioral and Neural Sciences, which includes both biology and psychology. It was felt that the boundary drawing exercise was best left to scholars most familiar with the interaction among psychology, anthropology, and linguistics, on the one hand, and between biology and neurology, on the other. It was certainly not a task to be attempted at a single-day meeting of social scientists representing diverse disciplines, methodologies, and institutions. The complexity of boundary drawing became apparent to the participants, and the consensus voiced was that a noninclusive directorate might place the social science program of the Foundation in a difficult, perhaps vulnerable position. In the opinion of those present, a directorate that did not include anthropology and psychology woul.d not be an adequate social science directorate, for two reasons. First, it would lack intellectual coherence, since these disciplines are central to the social sciences. Second, it would be politically weak and might be forced to defend itself, both within the Foundation and without, in terms of the utility of the social sciences as "applied" sciences. While no one can forecast the future of a noninclusive directorate, among those assembled at the September 12 meeting there was little inclination to recommend a directorate which lacked such critical disciplines as psychology and anthropology. The meeting was chaired by Kenneth Prewitt, president of the Council. The social science community was represented by Robert McC. Adams, University of Chicago; Conrad M. Arensberg, Columbia University, president, American Anthropological AsDECB1BER
soclatton; William J. Baumol, Princeton University and New York University, president-elect, American Economic Association; Norman M. Bradburn, director, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago; Russell R. Dynes, executive officer, American Sociological Association; David A. Goslin, executive officer, Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Academy of Sciences; John H. Ham mer, associate secretary, Li nguistic Society of America; Edward f Lehman, executive director, American Anthropological Association; Fred C. Leone, executive officer, American Statistical Association, Gardner Lindzey, director, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences; Thomas E. Mann, executive director-designate, American Political Science Association; Patricia McWethy, executive director, Association of American Geographers; Warren E. Miller, National Election Studies/Center for Political Studies, I nstitute for Social Research, University of Michigan; Michael S. Pallak, executive officer, American Psychological Association; Roy Radner, Bell Telephone Laboratories; Priscilla C. Reining, project director, Office of International Science and secretary, Section H (Anthropology), American Association for the Advancement of Science; Eugene F. Rice, Jr., staff, American Historical Association; William H. Sewell, University of Wisconsin; J. Merrill Shanks, National Election Studies/ Center for Political Studies, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; David L. Sills, Social Science Research Council and retiring chairperson, Section K (Social and Economic Sciences), American Association for the Advancement of Science; Mack Thompson, executive director, American Historical Association; Sidney Verba, Harvard University, and chairman, Committee on Problems and Policy, Social Science Research Council; Julian Wolpert, Princeton University, chairman, Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Academy of Sciences; and Harriet Zuckerman, Columbia University. The National Science Foundation staff represented at the meeting were Donald N. Langenberg, acting director; Eloise E. Clark, assistant director for biological, behavioral, and social sciences; Harvey A verch, assistant director for scientific, technological, and international affairs; L. Vaughn Blankenship, division director, Division of Applied Research; Otto :'\1. Larsen, division director, Social and Economic Science; Richard T. Louttit, division director, Behavioral and Neural Sciences; Allen M. Shinn, Jr., senior science associate, Office of the Director; and M. Kent Wilson, Office of Planning and Resource Management.
Current Activities at the Council New directors and officers The Council's board of directors, at its meeting on :vIay 31, 1980, elected five directors to serve three-year terms. "iewly-elected directors-at-Iarge are Stephen E. Fienberg, statistics, Carnegie- \1ellon University; Gardner Lindzey, psychology, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences; and Sidney Verba, political science, Harvanl Unhersity. :vir. Verba served last year as chairman of the Commitee on Problems and Policy and he was reelected to that position. Also elected to board membership were two new directors from professional associations: Michael Kammen, Cornell University (American Historical Association), and Charles O.Jones, University of Pittsburgh (American Political Science Association). Otto N. Larsen, University of Washington, serving as a director from the American Sociological Association, was appointed during the summer as director of the Division of Social and Economic Science of the National Science Foundation. Accordingly, he resigned from the Council's board. I mmanuel Wallerstein, State University of New York at Binghamton, will serve in Mr. Larsen's stead for the remainder of the term. The board also elected the Council's officers for 1980-81: Robert A. LeVine, anthropology, Harvard University, chairman; Eleanor E. :vIaccoby, psychology, Stanford University, vice-chairman; Stephen E. Fienberg, statistics, Carnegie- Mellon University, secretary; and Rosedith Sitgreaves Bowker, statistics, National Institute of Education, treasurer.
New staff members Sophie Sa joined the Council in October as staff associate for both the Joint Committee on Contemporary China and the International Research Opportunities Board. A graduate of Wellesley College, she received a B.A. in history in 1965, an :vI.A. in East Asian Regional Studies in 1967 from Harvard University, and a joint Ph.D. in sociology and East Asian languages in 1975, also from Harvard University. She comes to the Council from the Center for Policy Research (New York and Washington, D.C.), where she
was administrator and a~sistant director. Her major research interest is the Chinese family and her paper on marriage and adoption among urban Taiwanese households, presented at a conference sponsored by the Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, will appear in a volume edited by Arthur P. Wolf and Susan B. Hanley. Richard ~1. Scheffler joined the Council in "iovember as a part-time staff associate for the new program on employment and training, which will be located in the Washington office. :vir. Scheffler received the B.A. from Hofstra University in 1965; the :vI.A. from Brooklyn College in 1967; and the Ph.D. in economics from New York University in 1971. He then joined the economics faculty at the University of North Carolina as an associate professor of economics. He spent two years at the Institute of :vIedicine-National Academy of Sciences as a scholar-in-residence. He has worked and published extensively in the fields of health and labor economics and he teaches these topics as an associate professor of economics at George Washington University, a position he will retain while he is associated with the Council.
Cognitive Research The Committee on Cognitive Research, appointed in 1972, has recently sponsored the following activities. Decision making and inference in natural settings. The committee sponsored a meeting on this topic on May 28-30, 1980, in San Francisco, in order to bring together cognitive scientists who share an interest in understanding how people make decisions and inferences in naturally occurring cognitive activities. The rich anthropological descriptions of such cognitive activities in natural settings (for example, the decision process used by village elders to set pacification fees in litigation settlements) are not compatible with any singular theory or model of decision making from cognitive psychology; thus, one aspect of the meeting involved consideration of possible general theories of human decision making which could incorporate the alternate strategies people use for simplifying decisions. Another major theme of the meeting was the cognitive processes by which indi-
viduals cope with the very extensive and complex information from which they lIIust make inferences under natural conditions. For example, studies of.people's inferences about the behavior of others have shown that people are able to provide stable interpretations of others' behavior in spite of the fact that any given behavior may signal many different intentions, and any single intention may be actualized through many acts. fhe participants represented a variety of disciplines in the social sciences, although cognitive anthropologists and psychologists, because of their mutual interests but different methodologies and approaches, predominated. Each participant presented a 45-minute paper on an area of research. The participants were :vIichael Agar, University of California, Berkeley; Roy D'Andrade, University of California, San Diego; Allan Collins, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman (Cambridge, Massachusetts); Hillel J. Einhorn, University of Chicago; Baruch Fischhoff, Decision Research (Eugene, Oregon); Jerry Hobbs, SRI International (Menlo Park, California); Edwin Hutchins, Naval Personnel Research and Development Center (San Diego); Richard E. Nisbett, University of \1ichigan; and Ann Whyte, University of Toronto. Committee members Naomi Quinn and Amos Tversky also attended. A conference Oil spatial orientation was sponsored by the committee on July 14-16, 1980 at the Spring Hill Conference Center, Wayzata, Minnesota. Cosponsored by the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota and the university's Center for Research in Human Learning, the conference was organi7ed by Herbert L. Pick, Jr., committee chairman (1976-1980), University of Minnesota, and Linda Acredolo, University of California, Davis. The aim of the conference was to bring together people working on problems of spatial orientation in natural settings on the one hand, and those working on related problems in the laboratory on the other hand. Although a few investig-ators work on both kinds of problems, it is generally the case that different groups of people work on the two kinds of problems, and there is relatively little communication between them. In addition, researchers in a variety of disciplines are VOLUME
interested in spatial orientation; thus, a supplementary aim was to bring together representatives of several disciplines. A variety of disciplines was represented at the conference, including anthropology, computer science (mathematics), geography, linguistics, and psychology. The participants were from both academic institutions and applied research insti~u颅 tio ns, and they discussed both practical and theoretical aspects of spatial orientation. They included Fred Attneave, University of Oregon; Jack Baird, Dartmouth College; Kenneth Cross, ANACAPA Science I ne. (Santa Barbara, California); Charles .I. Fillmore, University of California, Berkeley; Emerson Foulke, University of Louisville; Reginald Golledge, University of California, Santa Barbara; Nancy Hazen, University of Texas; Edwin Hutchins, Naval Personnel Research and Development Center (San Diego); Wolfgang Klein, Max-Planck Institute (Nijmegen, The Netherlands); Benjamin Kuipers, Tufts University; Emil Menzel, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Russell Ohta, West Virginia University; Zita Simutis, Army Research Institute (Alexandria, Virginia); Len Talmy, University of California, San Diego; and Perry Thorndyke, Rand Corporation (Santa Monica, California). The first session focused on comparative analyses of navigational systems. A number of classical philosophical questions about reference systems and the analysis of such questions were related to a variety of aspects of the data on the spatial behavior of chimpanzees. Also, an analysis of the traditional noninstrumental navigational system still used in the Caroline Islands to travel by boat from one island to another was presented. In these discussions, the advantages of an integration of modern evolutionary theory and a comparative-ethological approach were stressed and the need for examining multiple strategies of spatial orientation was proposed. The second session was concerned with spatial orientation in special populations. Particular attention was devoted to the spatial problems confronted by the aging, resulting from changes in sensory functions and other changes that might limit mobility. A large study of the spatial knowledge of retarded persons in their urban communities was discussed, as well as the problems faced by blind pedestrians in getting about. Discussions focused particularly on the type of information needed for mobility and the inDECEMBER
adequacy of most technological aids to provide that information in a useful form. These discussions stressed the importance of motivational factors in the spatial behaviOl' of these special groups; for example, in one way or another active exploration was a factor in their spatial orientation. rhe third session focused on the nature and use of maps in maintaining orientation. \1ap research using a computerbased system for training terrain visualization in reading contour maps was presented. The interpretation of maps was considered by calling attention to various cartographic conventions which affect what features are included in maps and how these are represented. It was argued in response to these two presentations that we need theories of task performance, spatial cognition, and individual differences. The fourth session was concerned with language and spatial orientation. One presenter analyzed locational references in language exemplified by expressions such as "here, there, left, right," whose referent depends on the position of the speaker at the time of reference. How language represents space and spatial information in the sense of what kinds of and how geometric distinctions are made was also considered. For example, various characteristics of a language are reflected in spatial expressions. It was suggested that language may be a system whereby quite fine spatial d istinctions can be made by referring to the intersection of a number of fairly crude categories. These presentations were concerned with what kind of system language is and how language as a system is in fact used. The spatial distinctions encompassed by demonstratives such as this or that can be differentially complex in different languages while still behaving consistently and systematically. rhe fifth session focused on spatial information processing. One theme concerned the representational nature of the maps people constr uct of a space. For example, how can a scali ng analysis of cognitive map data be used to infer the strategies by which subjects generate their cognitive maps? The nature of mental representations of space was also considered. Recent analyses reject a "map in the head" theory of cognitive maps, but instead advocate conceptualizing cognitive maps as a complex data structure and set of associated procedures that exhibit a certain input-output behavior. The use
of such a structure can be simulated on a computer. It was agreed that large-scale maps are based on smaller-scale maps, whatever the form of this spatial (map) knowledge might he. There was disagreement on whether map-like entities exist in the heact. The value of considering spatial imagery as a mechanism fo r spatial orientation tasks was suggested . rhree general themes pervaded much of the conference. One was the type of information used in spatial orientation; the other was the nature of the mental representation of space; and the th ird, based on the first two, was the interaction of the type of information with the nature of representation. It is hoped that the proceedings will be published in 1981 . In addition to the 17 participants, 27 geography and psychology graduate students and faculty members of the University of Minnesota attended one or more sessIons. A workshop 011 the testing of readillg comprehension was convened by the committee on :Vlay 17, 1980 in Berkeley, California. The agenda was organized around issues such as the representation of the "successful" comprehension of a text, the identification of the skills and capabilities a reader must bring to a text in order to comprehend it, and the nature of 路't.aking a reading test" as a cognitive activity. The focus throughout the day was on the comprehension of textual material as a naturally-occurring cognitive activity. The committee is planning a series of larger follow-up conferences as part of its future program on the broader topic of "learning to learn." The participants included Messrs. Bransford, Cicourel, Cole, and Fillmore, from the cOlllmittee; Wallace Chafe, Lily Wong Fillmore, John Gumperz, Paul Kay,John Ogbu, and Herbert Simons, all from the University of California, Berkeley; Allan Collins, Bolt, Beranek, and :-.)ewman (Cambridge, Massachusetts); Patricia Carrell, Southern Illinois University; Otto Stern, University of Zurich; Svenka Savic, Institute of South Slavic Languages (Novi Sad, Yugoslavia); and Ovid Tzeng, University of California, Riverside, all visiting scholars at the University of California, Berkeley; and Richard C. Anderson, lJ niversity of Illinois; Bjorn Karlson, Sonoma State University; Jana Mason, University of Illinois; John Seely-Brown, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center; and Jenny CookGumperz, University of California, Berkeley.
The current members of the committee are :'>Iaomi Quinn, Duke University, cochairman; Eleanor Rosch, University of California, Berkeley, cochairman; John Bransford, Vanderbilt University; Aaron V. Cicourel, University of California, San Diego; Michael Cole, University of California, San Diego; Charles J. FiI1more, University of California, Berkeley; James G. March, Stanford University; Herbert L. Pick, Jr., University of Minnesota; Amos Tversky, Stanford University; staff, Lonnie R. Sherrod.
Biosocial perspectives on parenting In 1977, the Committee on Biosocial Science organized a working group to explore the biosocial foundations of parenting and offspring development. Organizers Melvin J. Konner, Harvard University (anthropology); Jane B. Lancaster, University of Oklahoma (primatology); and Alice S. Rossi, University of Massachusetts (sociology) sought to bring together what have been very different traditions of research and practice in the biological, social, and medical sciences, bearing on parenting and offspring development. The critical objective was to bring an evolutionary perspective, as well as a cross-species and cross-cultural approach, into direct association with (I) behavioral science theory and research on contemporary human reproduction and child rearing and (2) the medical and clinical fields concerned with the physical and emotional health of children and their parents. As a result of this program (which consisted of three workshops funded by the :'>Iational Institute of Child Health and Human Development), the working group has been expanded to become a Committee on Biosocial Perspectives on Parenting, appointed by the Committee on Problems and Policy at its October meeting. The committee is currently seeking support for a three-year program, including a series of five conferences designed to bring a biosocial science perspective to research on parenting behavior. The biosocial science perspective constitutes a framework for the study of contemporary human social behavior; it is characterized by cross-cultural, crossspecies, and cross-time comparative approaches. Its utility is that it may serve through its focus on the biological aspects of social phenomena and its use of com-
parative approaches to iI1uminate areas that social science has not by itself been adequate to conceptualize. Conferences will be designed to bring together researchers from a variety of disciplines (including anthropology, child development, ethology, family sociology, pediatrics, primatology, psychiatry, and zoology). Conferences are planned to examine the contribution of a biosocial science perspective to each of the following areas : brain and behavioral development in relation to parenting; the life-span development of parenting; child abuse and neglect; teenage pregnancy and parenting; and the context or environment in which parenting occurs. Publications are planned summarizing the proceedings of each conference. Additionally, workshops are planned to facilitate the development of coIlaborative, interdisciplinary research projects on the biosocial approach to parenting research. The committee also intends to serve a clearinghouse function ~. by maintaining a bibliography of research studies and papers in the area and a mailing list of interested scholars. The members of the committee are Jane B. Lancaster, University of Oklahoma, chairman; Richard J. Gelles, University of Rhode Island; Kathleen R. Gibson, University of Texas, Houston; Beatrix A. Hamburg, Children's Hospital \1edical Center (Boston); David A. Hamburg, Harvard University; Melvin J . Kanner, Harvard University; Alice S. Rossi, University of Massachusetts; and Charles M. Super, Harvard University. Lonnie R. Sherrod serves as staff to the committee.
Development, Giftedness, and the Learning Process A new com mittee now succeeds the Committee on Gifted children (1975-80), which was appointed to take a fresh look at issues in the definition of giftedness. the identification of the gifted individual, and the related question of educational provisions for the gifted. That committee's initial activities were supported by the American Psychological Foundation with funds from the estate of Esther Katz Rosen. Although it held a number of meetings in the intervening years and developed a proposal for workshops and conferences, the committee was not able to secure additional funding. In April 1980, under the leadership of David H. Feldman, Tufts University, a two-day meeting was held in Cambridge,
\1assachusetts to review the activities of the committee and consider a new focus. Participants were David Ackerman, :'>Iewton Public Schools; Jeanne S. Bamberger, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Howard E. Gardner, Veterans Ad ministration Hospital (Boston); Howard Gruber, Rutgers University; Richard Lewis, Touchstone Center for Children (:'>lew York); Halbert E. Robinson, University of Washington; and Brian Sutton-Smith, University of Pennsylvania. Following the meeting, a proposal was drawn up for a new committee to be charged with examining the developmental aspects of giftedness. This focus will free the committee from giving attention only to giftedness in children and permit it to look at giftedness wherever it appears in the life cycle. The Committee on Problems and Policy reviewed the proposal and appointed the new committee as its meeting in May. The Committee on Development, Giftedness, and the Learning Process is chaired by Mr. Feldman. Other members of the committee are Mrs. Bamberger and Messrs. Gardner, Gruber, and Robinson. Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr. serves as staff.
Liaison with economists in China A new committee has been appointed jointly by the Council and the American Economic Association to develop and implement proposals to expand and deepen communication between economists in the United States and those in China. The committee intends to sponsor conferences; facilitate long-term research projects, including joint American-Chinese projects; and take other steps to bring professional economists in the two countries closer together. The cochairmen of the committee are Gregory Chi-Chong Chow, Princeton University, and Dwight H. Perkins, Harvard University. Other members of the committee are Irma Adelman, University of California, Berkeley; Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University; William J. Baumol, ;\lew York University and Princeton University; Lawrence R. Klein, University of Pennsylvania; Nicholas R. Lardy, Yale University; Lawrence J. Lau, Stanford University; and T. W. Schultz, University of Chicago. Amy Auerbacher Wilson, Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China, serves as staff. VOLUME
Dissertation fellows hi ps in employment and training
Applications are reviewed and approved by a screening committee consisting of Rashi Fein, Harvard University; Paul S. Goodman, Carnegie-Mellon University; Hylan Lewis, Brooklyn College, City University of New York; Frank P. Stafford, Uniyersity of Michigan; and Paula E. Stephan, Georgia State University. The screening committee is staffed by Robert Pearson of the Council's Washington office and Joseph B. Epstein, a consultant to the Council. Additional information and application forms may be obtained from :
erable body of research in the field of aging has focused on the cardiovascular diseases (e.g., arteriosclerosis, coronary The Council now sponsors a dissertaheart disease, and hypertension), perhaps tion fellowship program in employment because of their prevalence and high and training, a program that was premortality rates. Additionally, a number of viously administered by the National clinical and epidemiological studies sugCouncil on Employment Policy and prior gest that certain social and behavioral to that by the Employment and Training factors place persons at a higher than avAdministration (ETA) of the U.S. Deerage risk for developing hypertension partment of Labor. and heart disease, especially during the The purposes of the program are to middle years. Thus, the purpose of the improve the capability of the social and meeting was to address these bodies of behavioral sciences for studying the emresearch within the context of the lifeployment and training field; to increase course perspective, which emphasizes the the availability of trained researchers, Program in Employment and continuity and multidetermined nature ad ministrators, specialists, and consulTraining of human development and the interactants; to direct the attention of doctoral Social Science Research Council tions among social, psychological, and candidates to the nation's major employ1755 \1assachusetts Avenue, N.W., biological aging processes. ment and training programs; and to enSuite 410 The Framingham Study was selected courage social and behavioral research on Washington, D.C. 20036 because it is a major investigation of employment and training problems. Funding for the program is provided coronary heart disease; it is ongoing and Funds are available to support the disby a grant from the U.S. Department of therefore potentially receptive to social sertation research of graduate students Labor, which also includes support for a scientific contributions. The investigators who have completed all requirements for research planning committee on emin this longitudinal study (Drs. Castelli the doctoral degree except for the disployment and the labor market. This and Suzanne G. Haynes, National Heart, sertation, or who will have met these recommittee is in the process of being orLung, and Blood I nstitute) discussed quirements before the award becomes efon heart disease and on associfindings ganized. fective. Recipients in recent years have ated psychosocial factors. With the unearned degrees in such fields as economderlying theme being the relationship ics, education, political science, psycholLife-Course Perspectives on between behavior and health, other parogy, and sociology. Middle and Old Age ticipants from the social and biomedical Candidates dissertation topics must resciences offered perspectives and findlate to problems of employment and This committee, appointed in 1977, has ings in areas that carried implications for training in the United States. Study areas had an active program of conferences, the Framingham work. Examples are the workshops, and institutes. Here are some may include, but are not limited to: • Measurement of labor demand and !~ o~h.!gb.!ights of its recent acti~~s._ interaction of aging and disease; the supply ~ €ollference on stress, disease, alld behavior#> ~ high-risk approach to research (as employed in behavioral genetics and • Occupational and geographical mo~ }'Ield on May 5-6, 1980 at the Center for psychopathology studies); and the find1, ~ \Advanced Study in the Behavioral Scibility ings of stress and coping, coronary-prone • Flexible work hours,job sharing, and ences (Stanford, California)~ this conference employed the life-course perspective behavior, and medical-behavioral prework sharing ventive programs regarding the devel• Discrimination in employment; artifito examine findings on cardiovascular opment of cardiovascular disease. cial barriers to employment; disease and associated psychosocial facThe agenda was composed of both presgroups with special needs, such as tors. entations and open discussions. I n both This was the fourth in a series of conFemales Minority group members ferences that have the goal of clarifying cases, an informal workshop (as opposed to conference) approach was adopted; the Youth and specifying a life-course perspective setting and intellectual climate of the Older workers on aging. Like the preceding one, which Center for Advanced Study in the Be• Transition from school to work focused on the life course of family mem• Urban and rural labor market probers, the conference was designed to havioral Sciences greatly facilitated this scholarly exchange. With the Framingcesses apply the life-course or life-span apham Study as a focal point, the aim was • Unemployment and underemployproach to a specific topical theme. Folto bring together researchers from difment lowing the strategy employed in previous • Work and welfare topical meetings, the two-day conference ferent disciplines who investigate similar • Productivity was organized around a major national problems-with the expectation of em• Energy and employment longitudinal study which reflected the ploying a common perspective on life• Research reporting on the functionmeeting's focus-in this case, the Framingcourse development to construct some ing of the Comprehensive Emham, Massachusetts Study of Coronary bridges between findings in these difployment and Training Act Heart Disease, directed by William P. ferent disciplines. A report on die meeting (CETA), the United States EmCastelli, M.D. is availa~ble. ployment Service, or the Bureau of The focus on heart disease was emThe participants, in addition to comApprenticeship and Training. ployed because in recent years a considmittee members and investigators from
the Framingham Study, included David L. Featherman, University of Wisconsin; James Fries, Stanford University; David S. Krantz, Uniformed Services University of the Healt h Sciences; Richard S. Lazarus, University of California, Berkeley; ;\jathan Maccoby, Stanford University; Gerald E. McClearn, University of Colorado: Sarnoff A. 'vIed nick, University of California, Los Angeles; and Erhard Olbrich, University of Giessen. Additionally, Center fellows who were members of the 1979-80 grou p which explored the behavior of children under stress participated as observers in order to share their perspective on early childhood developmcnt. The .self alld perceived persullal wlltrul through the life spall was the theme of the fifth conference organized by the LOmmiuee, held on October 5 and 6, 1980 in ;\jew York. The conference theme was intcndcd LO convey a distinction between a sense of self (or self-concept) and a sense of mastery or personal control. The mceting was organized to examine life-span changes (and stabilities) in the sense of self as it relates to perceived personal control. In order to have a sense of self, one must have a sensc of the world; in order to have a sense of personal control, one must have a sense of what or who controls world events. Thus, the individual must develop a theory of social and physical causality, including his or hcr own role in it. Sessions of the meeting were organized to examine the development of this "belief system" over the life span-in its interaction with the trajectory of individual development (including possible biological bases as well as life events) and with the course of social change. The first session dealt with theoretical and empirical attcmpts to disaggregate the belief in personal control into more precisely dcfined components relating to the individual's areas of activity, such as work roles, and to cultural definitions of self and personal control. .fhe second scssion of the meeting was devotcd to a direct examination of lifespan variations in expressions of this belief system. Changes in the sense of personal control seem to correspond in a common sense way to the realities of life from about age six to midlife; that is, feelings of control increase from early childhood up through adolescence (the feeling of "I cannot fail"), and increase through the next several decades during
mastery of the key tasks of life. This progression is, however, followed by a gradual erosion of the sense of control during thc later years. The meeting examined thc empirical support for this descriptioll ami the illlerrelationships of self-coIlCt:p l. and a belief in personal controL 路['he third session cxplored the sense of self and personal control as personalit y conccpts that necessarily intersect with the life-coul路se tr,uectory of events and criscs. rhe situational determinants (or the ecolog)) of thc life-span developme nt of self and personal control and the interrelationships between personal efficacy and stress a nd coping. helplessness, and physical and mental health were also considcrerl. f he fina l session was an anempt to set a research agenda, given that there is very little longitudinal research on personal control. Although participants attempted to address life-span variations, the lack of empirical evidence prevented concrete conclusions. Hcnce, one major result of the mecting will be an attempt to facilitate life-span investigations of the phenomcna. Participants, besides committee members, included Lyn Y. Abramson, State University of :'\Jew York, Stony Brook; Albert Bandura, Stanford University; Carol S. Dweck, University of Illinois; David C. Glass, City University of New York; Patricia Gurin, University of Michigan; Hein7 Heckhauscn, University of Bochum; Richard S. Lazarus, University of California, Berkeley: Herhert M. Lefcourt, University of Waterloo; Wilbert J. McKeachie, University of \Iichigan; Leonard I. Pearlin, :'I1ational I nstitute of Mental Health; Judith Rodin, Yale University; and Irwin Sarason, University of Washington. Observers included Ronald P. Abeles, :"oIatiollal I IIstitute on Aging; Kathleen Brim (New York); Susan Migdal, Fordham Univcrsity; Christopher Peterson, University of Pennsylvania; John W. Riley, Jr. (Washington, D.C.); Carol A. Ryff, Fordham University; Heidi Sigal, Foundation for Child Development (;\jew York): Ellen Skinner, Educational Testing Service (Princeton, New Jersey); and Margaret Spencer, Emory University. A report on the conference will be available early in _198!. Workrhup oll"thp ItsI' of jJallel data for lifecourse resl'lIrch . At the first conference of
the committee, held in October 1978, the University of Michigan Panel Study of I ncome Dynamics (PSI D) was identified as
; tIl espe( ially rich, but largely unexplorcd, d ata ban k for life-coulv' ~tudics. As a rt'~ult , thc committee has Lonceptually and financ ially init ia ted and supported a sc ries of secondary analyses of tlte PSI D: these a n alyse~ have used the PSI L> data to descrihe the frcquencie~ acros~ chmnological age of critical life events (such as marriage,job lo~s, retircment), to describe the i Iltercorrel.ttions of events, to explorc the detcrmina nts of eve illS, and to search for their p()~siblc effects. A report of these analyses was presented at the co n ,, "iLlee 路~ mceting on Deccmber 2, 1979, in 'Jcw York: a rcvised version is puhlished in Grcg J. Duncan and James :"01. \10rg,1II (editors), Five Thul/salld Amer-
icall Falllilil's-Patltn"lls of Ecollomic Prugress, Volume VIII, Ann Arhor: Institute for Social RescarLh. 1980. A brief--nc'tte
appea rcd in /11'11/.1. in \'Iarch 1980. rhe analyses described in the ylorgan and Duncan report represent a preliminary effort at a life-course utilization of the PSI D. The committee (and the directors of the PSI D) a~e interested in facilitating a wider and fuller usc of the data set for life-course rest'arch. Toward this end, a workshop was held on June 19- 20, 1980, in Ann Arbor, Ylichigan, designed to inform potential users of the mcchanics of working with the data set and to develop proposals for life-course research ill which the data set could be used. The workshop was codirected by committee cochairman Glen H. Elder,Jr., Corncll University, and Mr. Morgan, a principal investigator of t.he PSI D. An announcemcnt of the workshop inviting applicat ions was (.ir(.ulated widely-to the cOlllmittee's correspondents and to Illqjor un i \"er~ities and appeared in the APA .\1ollitor, the ASA Fuot/lotes, and Itelll~. There was considerable intcrest in t he workshop, and only a sm all pcrLentage of the appli<.:ants could be admitted. Twenty participants were selected on thc basis of academic qualifications and rationale for participatioll in lhe workshop. The participants included Ronald P. Abcle~, :'\Jational Institute on Aging; Paula Smith Avioli, Rutgers University : Rosemary Blieszner, Pennsylvania State University; Paula England, U nivcrsit y of Texas at Dallas; Richard J. Harris, University of Southern California; Dennis P. Hogan, University of Chicago; ;\jan Lin, State University of ;\jew York, Albany; Sara S. McLanahan, University of Wisconsin; Steven D. 'vlcLaughlin, Battelle Human Affairs Resear<.:h Centers (Seattle, Washington); VOLUME
Joseph F. Melichar, University of California, San Francisco; Elizabeth Menaghan, Ohio State University; Phyllis Moen, Cornell University; Valerie K. Oppenheimer, University of California, Los Angeles; Suzanne T. Ortega, Vanderbilt University; Pamela J. Perun, Wellesley College; Christopher Peterson, University of Pennsylvania; A. Wade Smith, Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development (Boys Town, :'Ilebraska); Byron G. Spencer, McMaster University; Mark J. Stern, University of Pennsylvania; and Richard Suzman, Stanford University. A report on the workshop is available.
Announcement A conference is planned for fall 1981 on life-course research that utilizes the data of the University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The conference will be open to individuals who are involved in research on life-course issues with the PSID; applications in the form of a detailed analysis plan should be submitted by June 1, 1981. 1nterested scholars should contact Lonnie R. Sherrod at the Council.
1 ! Summer postdoctoral institute on life-span human development. As a means of stimulating research on life-course development and recruiting scholars to such research, the committee cosponsored, with the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, a postdoctoral summer institute, held at the Center in Stanford, California, from July 8 through August 15, 1980. The institute was codirected by Paul B. Baltes, MaxPlanck Institute for Human Development and Education (Berlin), committee cochairman, and David L. Featherman, University of Wisconsin. The institute and its seminars explored both continuities and changes in behavior from conception to death in order to broaden scientific perspectives on human development. A basic proposition of these seminars was that hu man development DECEMBER
continues over the full course of life, is molded by biological, psychological, sociocultural, demographic, and historical influences, and is an individual-level attribute which conditions social organization. Specific emphases were on research methodology in the study of human development, theories oflife-span development, and in-depth treatment of a selected set of substantive research topics such as memory, intelligence, personality, intergenerational relations, careers, and the family life cycle. Whereas the primary focus of the institute was on issues in psychology and sociology, implications of a life-span perspective on behavior for the content and scope of other disciplines such as anthropology, biology, economics, education, history, and psychiatry were also considered. On a general level, the main goals of the institute were threefold: (1) to broaden and intensify participants' understanding of life-span human development as approached by different disciplines; (2) to develop, extend, and solidify a network of colleagues interested in various facets of a life-span approach; and (3) to work collectively and individually on selected topics amenable to lifespan analysis and research. The format included several types of activities: (1) overview lectures by the codirectors; (2) presentations by visiting distinguished scholars on specific topics; and (3) research seminars and lectures organized by institute participants. The concrete products of institute participation encompassed a variety of items. For example, participants designed a course or a research proposal dealing with a selected topic in life-span development. Throughout the institute, informal contact and discussions among participants and instructors were emphasized. Participants also were asked to contribute to a final report by summarizing the presentation and discussion of one session. A detailed and comprehensive report of the institute is available. The participants included Liesa Stamm Auerbach, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Josefina Jayme Card, American Institutes for Research (Palo Alto, California); Vivian Clayton, Teachers College, Columbia University; Bruce R. Hare, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Dennis P. Hogan, University of Chicago; Bertha Garrett Holliday, George Peabody 路 College of Vanderbilt University; David I. Kertzer, Bowdoin College; Gisela Labouvie-Vief, Wayne
State University; Michael Lougee, University of Connecticut; Nancy A. Marlin, University of Missouri, Rolla; Victoria Molfese, Southern Illinois University; Angel M. Pacheco, University of Puerto Rico; H. Wesley Perkins, Hobart and William Smith Colleges; PamelaJ. Perun, Wellesley College; Albert Roberts, Howard University; William McKinley Runyan, University of California, Berkeley; Carol D. Ryff, Fordham University; Timothy A. Salthouse, V niversity of Missouri; Margaret Beale Spencer, Emory University; Bernard Treiber, University of Heidelberg; Amy Ong Tsui, University of Chicago; M. Belinda Tucker, University of California, Los Angeles; and Maris A. Vinovskis, University of Michigan. The faculty, in addition to the directors, include Margaret M. Baltes, Free University of Berlin; Vern L. Bengtson, University of Southern California; W. T. Bielby, University of California, Santa Barbara; James Fries, Stanford University School of Medicine; Frank Furstenberg, University of Pennsylvania; Leslie H. Hicks, Howard University; Nathan Keyfitz, Harvard University; Lawrence Kohlberg, Harvard University; Richard M. Lerner, Pennsylvania State University; George Vaillant, Cambridge Hospital (Cambridge, Massachusetts); and Sherwood L. Washburn, University of California, Berkeley; and the following committee members: Orville G. Brim,Jr., Glen H. Elder,Jr., Caleb Finch, Matilda W. Riley, Martin E. P. Seligman, and Aage B. S~rensen. The full committee met at the Center during one week of the institute in order to meet with the participants and contribute substantively to the proceedings. The institute was funded by a grant to the Center from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. --路rne current members of the com mittee are Paul B. Baltes, Max-Planck Institute for Human Development and Education (Berlin), cochairman; Glen H. Elder, Jr., Cornell University, cochairman; Orville G. Brim, Jr., Foundation for Child Development C'l"ew York); Caleb E. Finch, University of Southern California; George M. Martin, University of Washington; John W. Meyer, Stanford University; Walter Muller, University of Mannheim; Martin E. P. Seligman, University of Pennsylvania; M. Brewster Smith, University of California, Santa Cruz; Aage B. S~ren颅 sen, University of Wisconsin; Franz E. Weinert, University of Heidelberg; adviser, Matilda White Riley, National Institute on Aging; staff, Lonnie R. Sherrod.
Newly-issued Council Publications China's Development Experience in Comparative Perspective, edited by Robert F. Dernberger. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, January 31-February 2, 1976. Cambridge, \1assachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1980. vi + 347 pages. $30.00. China's economic development since 1949 is recognized by many as a success story and a model to be followed by other developing countries. What, then, are some of the features of China's development experience? How does China's experience contribute to our understanding about the objectives of and obstacles to economic development? What is the relevance of China's experience to other developing countries and how transferable is it to those countries? These are some of the issues addressed in this volume edited by Robert F. Dernberger, University of \1ichigan, who had organized the 1976 conference of which the volume IS a product. Although there is a chapter on ecoIlomic development in general (Amartya Sen, Oxford University) and another on development patterns in India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, three countries which are in many ways comparable to China (Thomas E. Weisskopf, University of \1ichigan), most of the contributions to this book deah yith China and were written by China specialists: \1r. Dernberger; Albert Feuerwerker, University of \1ichigan; Hu Teh-wei, Pennsylvania State University ; :-.Jicholas R. Lardy, Yale University; Franc;oise Le Gall, International \1olletary Fund; Dwight H . Perkins, Harvanl University; Thomas G. Rawski, University of roronto; and Benjamin Ward, University of California, Berkeley. The analyses presented by the authors lend strong support to the h ypothesis that direct transfer of China's development experience is not possible. This is because so much of its success depends on social, geographical, historical, and political features peculiar to China, and on the complex interdependence among these features. On the other hand, if China's experience is regarded as a model that includes a variety of technological experiments in a wide range of fields that can be looked at independently of cultural, political, and economic systems,
then clearly it is not irrelevant to the other developing countries.
The Chinese and the Japanese: Essays in Political and Cultural Interactions, edited by Akira Iriye. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Joint Committee on Contemporary China held at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, June 24-27, 1976. Princeton University Press, 1980. 368 pages. Hardbound, $25.00; paper, $9.95. Although interactions between the Chinese and the Japanese have existed for over two thousand years and have been an enduring aspect of East Asian history, little exists in the literature on the nature of those interactions. The 16 essays in this volume, which grew out of papers presented at a conference held in June 1976, seek to redress that situation and to contribute to the understanding of the modern history of China and Japan by analyzing their points of contact. Rather than follow an institutional approach, the essays take as their point of departure personal interactions and perceptions of individual Chinese and Japanese: how did each view themselves, and how did they view their mutual relations. Organized chronologically, the book traces the story-from the 18th century through the period of World War II-of two highly self-conscious peoples as they have made use of one another in terms of specific intellectual strategies, economic opportunities, political choices, and personal needs. Besides the editor, Akira Iriye, University of Chicago, who served as the conference organizer, other contributors to the volume are \1adeleine Chi, Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State; Samuel C. Chu, Ohio State University; Lloyd E. Eastman, University of Illinois; Harry D. Harootunian , University of Chicago; BunsO Hashikawa, Meiji University; \1asaru I kei, Keio University; \1arius B. Jansen, Princeton University; :-.Joriko Kamachi, University of Michigan, Dearborn; Susan H. \1arsh, Providence College; Takafusa :-.Jakamura, University of Tokyo; Bonnie B. Oh, Loyola University; Shumpei Okamoto, Temple University; John E. Schrecker, Brandeis University; Yue-him Tam, ;\Jew Asia College, Chinese University of Hong Kong; and Ernest P. Young, University of Michigan.
Humanistic and Social Science Research in China: Recent History and Future Prospects, edited by Anne F. Thurston and Jason H . Parker. A collaborative publication of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China and the Committee on Studies of Chinese Civilization of the American Council of Learned Societies. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1980. 175 pages. No charge. This volume is the product of a threeweek fact-finding trip made by members of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China (of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies) and the Committee on Studies of Chinese Civilization (of the ACLS) in the winter of 1979-80. As a result of visits to universities, libraries, and archives and conversations with leading members of the various institutes of philosophy and social sciences in seven Chinese cities, the delegation was able to assemble, by discipline, detailed reports about the state of each field, reviews of the strengths and weaknesses of research facilities, and lists of Chinese scholars and their institutional affiliations. The reports also provide the authors' own assessment of the prospects for future development in the various disciplines of the humanities and the social sciences. While the book is addressed mainly to China specialists, others with a more general interest in China's intellectual community and opportunities for scholarly exchange in the social sciences and humanities may find it informative and instructive. The introduction, by Anne F. Thurston (then staff associate at the Council) and Jason H. Parker (executive associate at the ACLS), gives a brief history of scholarship in China after 1949, assesses the current role and future development prospects of the social sciences and hu manities, describes some of the problems foreign researchers may face in China, and offers cautionary advice to those interested in conducting research in China. Subsequent chapters, arranged by discipline, were written by Hok-Iam Chan, University of Washington (premodern history); Paul A. Cohen, Wellesley College, and \1erle Goldman, Boston University (modern history); Donald J. \1unro, University of Michigan (philosophy); Cyril Birch, University of California, Berkeley, and Patrick D. Hanan, Harvard University (literature); VOLUME
Robert F. Dernberger, University of Michigan (economics); Thomas P. Bernstein, Columbia University (political science); Martin K. Whyte, University of \!Iichigan, and Burton Pasternak, Hunter College (sociology and anthropology); and Victor H . Li, Stanford University (law). Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies, edited by Stephen E. Fienberg and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. A publication of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Statistics of the Council's Acl\;sory and Planning Committee on Social Indicators. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1980. Approximately 180 pages. (Distributed by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Document NCJ-62349.) The quantitative study of both crime and <.riminal justice is a rapidly expanding field, involving the application of relatively complex statistical methods and probabilistic models. This volume brings together some of the research on this topic that was initiated at a workshop held in the summer of 1975. The workshop was sponsored by the Council's Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators, with funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice. An introductory essay by David Seidman, who at the time of the workshop was a staff associate at the Council, describes the highlights of a follow-up conference held in October 1977, at which workshop participants presented progress reports on some of their research. The essay provides an overview both of the volume and of the frontiers of quantitative research in this area. The remainder of the volume consists of 13 papers on such topics as macromodels for criminal justice planning, the deterrent effects of punishment on crime, the effects of plea bargaining upon the ultimate disposition of cases, criminal victimization and models for its analysis, victim proneness, parole decision making, and police patrol experiments. The volume is edited by Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie-Mellon University, and Albert J . Reiss, Jr., Yale University. In addition to the editors and Mr. Seidman, who is currently with the Rand Corporation (Washington, D.C.), the contributors to the volume include Albert D. Biderman, Bureau of Social Science Research (Washington, D.C.); Alfred
Blumstein, Carnegie-Mellon University; Stephen Brier, University of Iowa; David Britt, :\Iova University; Gary Koch, University of North Carolina; Kinley Larntz, University of Michigan; Colin Loftin, University of Michigan; Richard Perline, University of Chicago; Richard Sparks, Rutgers University; and Howard Wainer, Bureau of Social Science Research. Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, edited by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty. Papers from two conferences sponsored by the Joint Committee on South Asia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980. xxv + 342 pages. Karma is perhaps the most famous concept in Indian philosophy, but there is no comprehensive study of its various meanings or philosophical implications. Under the sponsorship of the Joint Committee on South Asia, leading Indologists met on several occasions to discuss the classical statements regarding the relationship of past action to present circumstances. Exchanges of draft essays created an underlying set of methodological assumptions; a corpus of definitions of karma; a dialectic between abstract theory and historical explanation; and an awareness of logical oppositions in theories of karma. No "solution" to the paradox of karma is offered, but this volume presents a consistent and encompassing approach to the many different, often conflicting, Indian statements of the problem . Following an introductory essay, Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, University of Chicago, presents the Vedic and Puranic background to the theory of karma. There follow studies of karma in the Mahiibhiirata (J. Bruce Long, Blaisdell Institute, Claremont, California), the Dharmasastras (Ludo Rocher, University of Pennsylvania), the medical textbooks (\!Iitchell G. Weiss, University of Pennsylvania School of \!Iedicine), and the Tamil tradition (George L. Hart, III, University of California, Berkeley). Buddhist concepts, perhaps the most pervasive formulations of karma, are treated for (1) early Buddhism with a hypothesis of the derivation of karma from tribal ideas ethicized by Buddhism (Gananath Obeysekere, University of California, San Diego), (2) Pali Buddhism (James McDermott, Canisius College), and (3) Tantric Buddhism (William Stablein, University of California, Santa Cruz). Padmanabh S.
Jaini (University of California, Berkeley) contributes a new hypothesis of the interaction of linear and cyclical ideas of transmigration in Jainism, to which he attributes the origin of the karma theory. Karl H. Potter (University of Washington) sets forth the philosophical implications of karma; Gerald Larson (University of California, Santa Barbara) attempts to resolve the two approaches, while Wilhelm Halbfass (University of Pennsylvania) demonstrates the way~ in which later Indian philosophy produced resolutions of its own. This book should have a considerable impact upon the teaching of Indian philosophy. At the very least, it demonstrates the impossibility of speaking of "the theory of karma," as is so often done. It also supplies the basis for a full study of this important theory. Finally, it raises basic methodological problems about the study of non-Western conceptualizations of death and rebirth, the interaction of medical and philosophical models of the human body, the incorporation of philosophical theories into practical religions with which they are logically incompatible, and the historical reconstruction of a complex theory of human life. The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President, by Thomas E. Patterson. A publication sponsored by the Committee on Mass Communications and Political Behavior (1974-80). New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980. xvi + 204 pages. Cloth, $21.95; paper, $8.95. Despite the news media's prominence in presidential election campaigns, there has been little comprehensive research on the media's impact. Most studies have been based on skimpy evidence. Recognizing this, the Council sponsored Thomas Patterson's study through its Committee on \!lass Communications and Political Behavior, which was appointed in 1974 to stimulate and coordinate research on mass communications and political behavior during the 1976 presidential election. Patterson's study addresses two specific questions. What is the nature of the election messages that are transmitted through the media during the presidential campaign? And how do these messages affect the public's response to today's campaign? In order to answer these questions, the study used two sources of evidence. First, a panel survey of voters was carried out in two communities; Erie, Penn-
sylvania, and Los Angeles, California. Beginning in February 1976, before the primaries began, and ending in ~ovember after election day, the 1,200 respondents in the panel were interviewed as many as seven times each about their media use, their impressions of the candidates and the campaign, their awareness of the election's issues, their interest in the campaign, and similar topics. The interviews were timed to bracket the majo~ stages of the campaign-the early primaries, the late primaries, the conventions, the debates, and the general election . Five of the waves involved hour-long personal interviews; two of the waves were conducted by telephone. Second, a content analysis of the news media's coverage .o f the 1976 presidential election was conducted. Examined was the entire election year's reporting of the three major commercial television networks-ABC, CBS, and NBC ; four daily newspapers-the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, the Erie News, and the Erie Times; and Time and Newsweek magazines. Patterson found that journalistic values, not political ones, dominate election news. The result is that election news: • focuses on the strategic games played by the candidates in their pursuit of the presidency, thereby de-emphasizing questions 'of national policy and leadership • concentrates on issues that are different from the ones emphasized by the candidates • distorts the structure of the presidential election system by exaggerating the importance of certain events and concentrating upon certain candidates This pattern of coverage provides a change from elections of the not-toodistant past. An earlier study by Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet (The People's Choice, first published in 1944) found that election news was concerned mainly with policy and leadership questions, was dominated by the issues preferred by the candidates, and balanced the coverage given the candidates. The reasons for the change in election news, Patterson suggests, are the lengthening of the campaign, which reduces the candidates' control of the agenda; an increase in the number of primaries, which directs attention to the candidates' successes and strategies; and developments in journalism, such as the
increased use of opinion polls, which are designed primarily to report the relative standing of the candidates. Patterson discovered that voters are affected substantially by election news. There is a close parallel between the media's version of the campaign and the voters' version. The reason is that for the large majority of voters, the campaign has little reality apart from its presentation in the media. Thus, the voters are : • attuned primarily to the election's race aspects rather than its political implications • more likely to develop images of the candidates as performers than as leaders and representatives. • more likely to gain information about the candidates' success than about their policy proposals or leadership capacities And this, too, is a change from the past. The electorate that Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet documented in the 1940s understood and emphasized questions of policy and governance more than matters of strategy and image. Based on his findings, Patterson contends that today's campaign places an intolerably heavy burden on the news media. The media are inadequate as a link between leaders and the led because they are not a political institution and have no stake in organizing public opinion. The media's version of the campaign is an inadequate guide to the choices facing the voters. Although many people look to the news media as a corrective for defects in the present electoral system, the media, Patterson concludes, exaggerate the system's weaknesses. Quantitative Measures of China's Economic Output, edited by Alexander Eckstein, with an introduction by Robert F. Dernberger. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Subcommittee on Re- ' search on the Chinese Economy of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China held at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., January 17-18, 1975. University of Michigan Press, 1980. 443 pages. Hardbound, $26.50. In 1974, Alexander Eckstein, the widely recognized dean of American scholars of the economy of China, was asked by the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy to organize a conference on reconciling and developing quantitative measures of China's economic output. Four papers were prepared for the 1975 conference, at which
more than 30 academics and professionals participated in the discussions. The four chapters in this volume are the revised conference papers. ~r . Eckstein died in December 1976, before the papers were ready for publicalion, and Robert F. Dernberger, University of ~ichigan, assumed the burden of completing the editorial process. In the introduction, he states that the purpose of the volume is not merely to show that a reasonable set of estimates for the macroindicators of China's economic development exists and to present the estimates in a format convenient for those engaged in economic research on China's economy. The major purpose is rather to offer both the specialist and the nonspecialist interested in China's economic development a basis for evaluating the alternative estimates for macroeconomic indicators which are already included in the available secondary literature on the subject. This is particularly crucial because of the data problems which exist and because of the disagreements over the quantitative measures for China. The four essays by Thomas B. Wiens, !\olathtech, Inc . (Bethesda, Maryland); Thomas G. Rawski, University of Toronto; Robert Michael Field, U.S. Central Intelligence Agency; and Dwight H . Perkins, Harvard University, deal with four major indicators: agricultural production, industrial production, capital formation, and national product. Each evaluates the empirical evidence available and derives what is in the view of each author the most meaningful set of estimates that could be determined. The essays illustrate not only the difficulties involved in making even tentative appraisals of the quantitative dimensions of China's economic evolution over the past 25 years, but also the very real accomplishments that can be achieved through persistence and carefully applied skill. Science Indicators: Implications for Research and Policy, edited by Harriet Zuckerman and Roberta Balstad Miller. Special issue of Scientometrics 2 (5-6): 327-448. A publication of the Subcommittee on Science Indicators of the Advisory and Planning Committee on Social I ndicators. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, and AkacIemiai Kiad6, Budapest, 1980. This volume is part of the continuing review by the Subcommittee on Science VOLUME
Indicators of the National Science Board's biennial science and technology indicators reports. The essays printed here were first presented at a review symposium on Science Indicators 1976 held in Washington, D.C. in May 1978. Papers and commentaries deal with the policy and research contexts of science indicators; with indicators relating science, technology, and the economy; with indicators of basic research activities; and with public opinion on science and technology. fhe contributors to the volume are Harriet Zuckerman, Columbia University, chairman of the subcommittee at the time of the review symposium; Roberta Balstad Miller, Social Science Research Council; Harvey Brooks, Harvard University; Harvey Averch, National Science Foundation; Rachael McCulloch, University of Wisconsin ; Edwin Mansfield, University of Pennsylvania; Richard B. Freeman, Harvard University; Nathan Rosenberg, Stanford University; Charlotte V. Kuh, Harvard University ; Stephen Cole, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Joseph Ben-David, University of Chicago and the Hebrew University; Derek J. de Solla Price, Yale University; Raymond Bowers, Harvard University; Henry W. Riecken, University of Pennsylvania; and Todd La Porte, University of California, Berkeley. Systeme urbaine et developpement au Maghreb, edited by Amal Rassam and Abdelkader Zghal. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Joint Committee on the :'Ilear and Middle East. Tunis: Ceres Productions, 1980. Most studies of modern urban society in the Maghreb-Algeria, Morocco, and I'unisia-have taken individual cities as their focus rather than the urbanization process itself. fhere have been no comprehensive or comparative analyses of urban development. To help fill this gap, the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East convened a conference on urbanization in the Maghreb held at the
Centre Culturel I lIternational de Hammamet, Tunisia, in June 1976. The conference brought together \1aghrebi and non-Maghrebi specialists in the several disciplines concerned with urban life and affairs, each of whom prepared a paper. The discussion was general and the overall theoretical issues and points of contention came quickly to the surface. Among the topics which were aired were rural-urban migration; ways in which the city dominates and exploits the countryside; the social structure of individual towns and cities; patterns of housing and housing policy; the structure of urban systems; the city as a system of signs both in architecture and in the verbal discourse of political and other leaders; the experiences of women in an urban environment; and the differential usefulness of various methodologies ranging from the analysis of census data to the collection of urban ethnographies for grasping the essence of urban life. fhe contributors, with the titles of their papers in English translation, are: Part I:
Urban and Social Systems: Historical Perspectives
"The City in Pre-Colonial Maghreb," by Andre :'Ilouschi, University of :'Ilice; "Urban Systems and Development," by Frej Stambouli, Centre d'Etudes et Recherches Economiqes et Sociales (CERES), University of Tunis; "City-Country Relations in 19th Century Tunisia: The Case of the Sahel and the Lower Steppes," by Khelifa Chateur, CERES, University of Tunis. Part II: Urban Growth alld Development
"The Case of Morocco," by Abderrafik Lahbabi, University of Grenoble; "The Case of Algeria," by Jilali Sari, Institut :'Ilational de Geographie, Algiers; "The Case of Tunisia," by Mohamed Fakhfakh CERES, University of Tunis. Part III: Urbanization and Urban Life
"The Medina in the Contempo-
rary Cit)' in Morocco," by Andre Adam, Universite Rene Descartes, Paris; "Urbanization and Rural Perceptions: The New Socialist Village of Aln Nahala, Algeria," by Cherif Bengargour, Centre de Recherches An- ' thropologiques, Prehistoriques, et Ethnographiques (CRAPE), Algiers; "Urbanization in Testour, Tunisia," by :'Ilicholas Hopkins, American University in Cairo; "The Urbanization Process in Haml1lamet, Tunisia," by Ridha Boukraa, CERES, University of Tunis. Part IV: Symbols, Aspirations and the Orgallizatioll of UTban Social Space
"Symbolic Forms and Urban Social Space: The Case of Morocco," by Dale F. Eickelman, New York University ; "Aspirations and the Structure of Residential Space," by ~1orched Chebbi, Tunis ; "Aspirations and :'Ileeds of the Newl y Urbanized," by Tqjeddine Baddou, lnstitut :'\lational de Statistiquc et d'Economie Appliquee, Rabat ; "Housing and Economic Behavior," by Salah Hamzaoui, CERES, University of Tunis. Part V : Ideology, Power, and Urban Planning
"Political Systems and Urban 'vlode1s in the 'vlaghreb," by Ellen C. Micaud, University of Denver; "Cities and Political Systems: The Official Algerian Image of the City," by Jean Leca, University of Grenoble; "Peasants and fheir Environments in Respect to the Transfer of Knowledge and Patterns of Domination Between Cities and the Countryside in Algeria," by Fanny Colonna, CRAPE, Algiers; "Political Aspects of the Study of Urbanization in Algeria," by I. William Zartman, New York Universir}.
Other Recent Publications: A Selection The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, edited by Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan. Published in connection with a conference partially sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, held in 1973 at Yale University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. (Published in 1978 in four paperback volumes.) Capitalism and the State in U.S.-Latin American Relations, edited by Richard R. Fagen. Papers presenter! at a conference sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., March 27-31, 1978. Stanford University Press, 1979. 446 pages. Hardbound, $22.50; paper, $6.95. Cognition and Categorization, edited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd. Papers based upon conferences held in 1974 and 1976, sponsored by the Committee on Cognitive Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978. Distributed by the Halsted Press Division of John Wiley and Sons. viii + 328 pages.
East. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980. x + 252 pages. Cloth, $21.95.
and Bradley M. Richardson. Prepared for the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies. :'IIew York: Social Science Research Council, 1979. iv + 40 pages. :'110 charge.
The Entertainment Functions of Televi. sion, edited by Percy H. Tannenbaum. Papers based on a conference organized by the Committee on Television and Social Behavior, held in New York on October 24-25, 1975. Hillsdale, Hew Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980. ix + 262 pages. Cloth, $19.95.
The New Authoritarianism in Latin America, edited by David Collier. Papers prepared as part of a project on the State and Public Policy sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies and presented at a conference held February 6-8, 1977. Princeton University Press, 1979. 456 pages. Hardbound, $25.00; paper, $5.95.
The Family in Latin America, edited by Francesca M. Cancian, Louis Wolf Goodman, and Peter H. Smith. Papers produced as the result of two conferences on the Social History of the Family sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies and held April 29-May 1, 1977, in San Francisco, and October 23-24, 1977, in Cuernavaca, Mexico. A special issue of the Journal of Family History, 111,4 (Winter 1978), 159 pages.
The Social History of Disease and Medicine in Africa, edited by John M. Janzen and Steven Feierman. Special issue of Social Science & Medicine, 13B(4): 239-356 (December 1979). A publication of the Joint Committee on African Studies. Exeter, Devon, England and Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press. (Available from Pergamon Press, Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, New York 10523.)
Health and Society in Africa: A Working Bibliography, compiled by Steven Feierman. Published as a preparatory guide for a series of conferences sponsored by the Joint Committee on African Studies. Waltham, Massachusetts: Crossroads Press of the African Studies Association, 1979.
Crises of Political Development in Europe and the United States, edited by Raymond Grew, Volume 9 in Studies in Political Development sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics of the Social Science Research Council. Princeton University Press, 1978. 433 pages. Hardbound, $27.50; paper, $6.95.
Japan: A Comparative View, edited by Albert M. Craig. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies. Princeton University Press, 1979. 437 pages.
Elites in the Middle East, edited by I. William Zartman. A publication of the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle
Mass Political Behavior Research in Japan: A Report on the State of the Field and Bibliography, by Scott C. Flanagan
Strangers in African Societies, edited by William A. Shack and Elliott P. Skinner. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Joint Committee on African Studies, held October 16-19, 1974 at the Smithsonian Conference Center, Belmont, Maryland. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. x + 325 pages. Studies in Chinese Society, edited by Arthur P. Wolf. Selected papers from conferences sponsored by the Joint Committee on Contemporary China. Stanford University Press, 1978. xii + 372 pages; paperback.
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 605
THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y.
lllcorporated ill the State of lllillois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advallcillg research ill the social sciences Directors, 1980-81:
ROSEDITH SITGREAVES BOWKER, STEPHEN E. FIENBERG, CLIFFORD GEERTZ, PHILIP W. JACKSON, CHARLES O. JONES, MICHAEL
KAMMEN, JANE B. LANCASTER, ROBERT A. LEVINE, GARDNER LINDZEY, ELEANOR E. MACCOBY, DWIGHT H. PERKINS, KENNETH PREWITT, MURRAY SCHWARTZ, SIDNEY VERBA, IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN, FINIS R. WELCH, WILLIAM j. WILSON
Officers and Staff: KENNETH PREWITT, President: DAVID L. SILLS, Executive Associate; GEORGE REID ANDREWS, RONALD AQUA, ROBERT A. GATES, MARTHA A. GEPHART, DONALD]' HERNANDEZ, DAVID E. MYERS, ROBERTA BALSTAD MILLER, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL,jR., ROBERT PARKE, ROBERT PEARSON, PETER B. READ, RICHARD C. ROCKWELL, SOPHIE SA, RICHARD M. SCHEFFLER, LONNIE R. SHERROD, DAVID McMANUS, Librarian
SZANTON; RONALD j. PELECK,