SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 18 NUMBER 2 JUNE 1964 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

CHINA'S POPULA rlON: AN APPROACH ro RESEARCH

THE most inexplicable aspect of Chinese studies is the neglect of the Chinese population. The most inexpli­cable aspect of population studies is the neglect of China and the Chinese. That which is inexplicable is not the neglect by a specific individual or a particular academic group but the pervasive substitution of myopic repeti­tion, propaganda, politics, and faith for imaginative ap­Dt'oaches and arduous labor. The deficiencies in the

e2hincse numerical apparatus, the difficulties of the Chinese language, and the intellectual and political clo­sures of China to the sophisticated acumen of research analysts are widely known. They complicate but do not bar research. The fundamental fact is a simple one. N either students of the Chinese society and economy nor demographers who labor in global or comparative focus can ignore the size, structure, and growth of the Chinese population and the interrelations of demographic, s0-

cial, economic, and political processes in that growth. China is not an island easily traveled and comprehen­sively studied by a lone scholar on a small grant. It is not an esoteric or a picturesque group whose compre­hension yields the enduring status of unique expert. China is, rather, the locus of the largest and most viable population on earth.

Study of the Chinese population is neither coun­try nor regional specialism. It is the extension of scien-

• The author is Senior Research Demographer at the Office of Population Research. Princeton University. As a member of the Sub­committee on Research on Chinese Society of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China. sponsored by the American Council of Learned

af0cieties and the Social Science Research Council. she presented the .Jriginal. longer version of this paper at the subcommittee's tenth semi­

nar. held at Gould House. Dobbs Ferry. March 31 - April 2. 1964 (as reported on page 20 infra).

by Irene B. Taeuber"

tific analysis to a major human experiment in demo­graphic and social development. Until knowledge, generalization, and developmental principles can be based on the analysis of the Chinese as well as the non-Chinese, there can be no statements of integrity that do not specifically limit relevance to the non­Chinese population on the planet. Given the fact that the Chinese number more than one-fifth of the world's population and have done so since the days of Caesar Augustus, their exclusion is a main barrier to the gen­eralization of formal demography and population study.

A hiatus of research on the population of China is not amenable to simple resolution by mobilization of personnel and facilities under the benevolent auspices of foundations and government. Present moves toward research are mainly responses to the requirements of the moment. They may also be the beginnings of a con­centration that will culminate perhaps a century and a half from now in analyzed and conceptualized knowl­edge of the population of China and hence an Asia and a world that includes China. Perhaps the greatest of the many challenges of research on the Chinese population is that it points onward with lines and patterns of trans­formation that are not now known.

Limitations to data and to publication are major barriers to population research within Mainland China as well as outside it. Students outside China have access only to fragments of whatever data have been collected and tabulated within China. Academicians who labor within China have the knowledge of population reali­ties, governmental activities, and sources of data that inhere in life and work within the country, but their facilities and their access to sources of data are subject to political barricades. There are data within the Bureau of

13

Statistics and other institutions of the government of Mainland China, but we know neither the types, the quantity, nor the quality. We suspect that developments have been slowed by security constrictions and a major insulation from the interchanges of knowledge, meth­odology, and technology in other parts of the world. We know, however, that closure is not absolute.

If research on the Chinese population is critically sig­nificant and intellectually exciting, why is there the paucity of research? The answers to this question lie in cross-cutting dichotomies. One is abiding; it is a con­tinuing product of developments within China and out­side it. Another is a complex and largely unknown prod­uct of the various policy and political factors involved in ideologies and the intellectual perceptions associated with them. To the Chinese, China is central, all else pe­ripheral. As the political and economic controls of the West diffused in Asia, the Chinese defined the Western men as barbarians. The intruders in Asia responded with views of China as a land of mystery and the Chinese as esoteric in social institutions, personality formation, and reproductive behavior. The immediate explanations lie in the history of China and the external relations of the Chinese in recent centuries. The Ch'ing (Manchu) established control over China in the middle of the seventeenth century. The first hundred years of their control was a period of expansion and continuing popu­lation growth; the second hundred was a period of in­creasing pressures and tensions that culminated in the Tai-p'ing rebellion. Western encroachment was in diverse penetrations, not conquest. The balance of ex­ternal political power was such that no one could conquer China. The Ch'ing maintained nominal con­trol until 1912. Then successive governments of the Republic of China struggled for an effective cen­tral government along with administrative relations with the provinces. Effective national administration was not achieved either at central or provincial levels in the years from 1912 to 1949. The invasion of the Japanese in Manchuria in 1931 and in China below the Great Wall in 1937 transformed the major problem from one of peaceful development to one of national survival. Fundamentally, however, the unification of China was an immense task and the time was brief. In 1949 the Communists secured control of the Mainland, and the government of the Republic of China moved to Taiwan. The majority of the Chinese became subject to a Peoples Republic.

Thus China was divergent in political, economic, and social organization in the period prior to 1912. The country had not become colonial; the people had not been subjected to the administrative controls and the continuing cultural contacts and personal interactions

of a colonial period. There was optimism in and outside China in 1912 and the following years as China prepared to move toward a Western democratic and develop­mental organization. However, the Republic of China A in its successive administrative forms lasted only the 37 ,. years from 1912 to 1949. Then China evolved a di­vergent Communism that led to ideological conflict and economic differentiation, not alone with the surround-ing Asian peoples but with the other Communist peo-ples, particularly those of the U.S.S.R.

Whatever the threads of modernization in China in the centuries of Western contact, most of the people of China remained premodern in most aspects of thought and action until the middle of the twentieth century. The successive governments of China achieved some knowledge of the administrative apparatus and opera­tions appropriate to modem governments. Sometimes administrative decisions and instructions seemed mod-em, as did papers presented to international meetings and published in learned journals. The model format was the product of small minorities within bureaucracy, however, and there was a Gresham's law of dilution as instructions went down to lower and lower levels. There was no colonial administration with administrative and technical know-how, nor were there alternate sources for technical assistance at operating levels. There were only a few demographic statisticians; for most of them, training had been limited and it had occurred many __ years before. If dedication to the teachings of the remote academic years was maintained and compromise was spumed, nothing happened in the inchoate structure that was China. Adjustment, disillusion, fading mem­ories, the aging of skills-all proceeded year by year as the Ministry of the Interior and the pao-chia (registra­tion) system produced from the field or elsewhere the figures that became official. Difficulties and deficiencies were compounded in demographic field surveys, where men partially and remotely trained planned and wrote in traditional status contexts, while field workers la­bored under the surveillance of the village headman.

The ancient and intermittently continuing record systems of China are neither demographic nor statistical

14

but purposively political. Control, collective responsibil-ity, labor levies, taxation, conscription-these were the associations of the local records, the investigations, the registrations, and the counts. So, early, people who acted rationally in their approaches to survival learned to as­sess purposes, balance that which would be conducive to local welfare with that which would be acceptable if not pleasing to government, and record or report ac­cordingly. The officials of government at the successivc:A. echelons were similarly motivated. Here the balancing" operation became more complicated, for there was the

knowledge of probable reality in relation to the sum­mations of local reports, the type of report that would produce minimum difficulties at lower levels, and the nature of the data that would be pleasing at higher levels.

There was an enduring pattern of secrecy with refer­ence to the figures that were produced. The numbers, the location, the characteristics, and the status of the people were aspects of the state of the realm. The figures were related to taxation, conscription, military potential, and prestige. This was not the milieu of welfare and development that permeates areas where levels and trends per capita are the measures of present achieve­ment and future hope. Neither was it a milieu for re­search on population.

The hiatus in external research on the population of China is quite comprehensible. The early Western men who came to China were interested in many things, but these did not include the levels of fertility inherent in Han culture, the course of normal and cataclysmic death rates, or the relations between familism, population pressure, and political stability. The missionaries were interested in the salvation of men's souls and the better­ment of their society on earth; demographic facts and as­sessments were sometimes presented, but they were in­cidental. The influences of the West entered colleges, universities, hospitals, and other institutions largely

_ under missionary influence. Humanitarian motivations were major; the element of compassion needs no em­phasis among those of us who heard the returned mis­sionaries in the Sunday schools and churches of our youth. There was condemnation along with compassion, and it covered the Chinese way of life, the family system, and the values on life and death. That detachment which was basic to scientific analysis in the population field could not coexist with the mission of religious conver­sion or secular transformation.

Western men in China contributed little population research, but the source materials for research that flowed from their activities and their pens are immense and barely touched. Many publications are valuable not so much for the presumed facts and analyses as for the incidental knowledge of the characteristics of the day­to-day functioning of areas and groups in China at the time of writing.

The absence of major Japanese demographic re­search on China is also comprehensible. Japan's own modernization was recent; koseki (household registers) remained the sole source of demographic data until 1920. The Japanese were insecure in their demographic work as they viewed it in Western focus. This was not a basis for originality in the approach to the vast and complex situation of China. Then, too, invasion and

15

conquest did not provide a milieu appropriate to pro­fessional collaboration or personal rapport.

Thus the Chinese failed to make other than incidental studies of their own population, while Westerners and Japanese failed to initiate, stimulate, or carry through many significant demographic analyses. Chinese looked outward for tacit assistance, while outsiders deferred to Chinese with appropriate if rather rare humility. The consequence was a remarkable absence of research.

There is now another series of factors influencing if not barring research on the Chinese population. This is the conflict of political ideologies and social organiza­tions within China, among the Communist states, and between China and that part of the West that includes the United States of America. The interrelations of population statistics, demographic research, Marxism­Leninism, and the operating Communist state are too complex for other than notation here. The major point is that China has moved from a premodern state without demographic statistics, demographers, or population studies to a format of modernization that precludes much of the now conventional forms, usages, and re­search activities of the advanced industrial states and bars information on or publication from those that are carried on. In this state of great need and greater igno­rance, technical assistance came from the Soviet Union.

The initial result of the Communist form of govern­ment was a darkening of the outlook for population statistics and analysis within a free research context. In the U.S.S.R. there was a complete census in 1926, nine years after the revolution, and it was fully published. In Communist China there was a simple census registra­tion in 1953-54, four years after the revolution. Few figures were published. No national statistical activity in the population field seems to have been undertaken in the last ten years. The traditions of China's past seem to have thwarted or perverted most of the types of data collection that would have been anticipated in a modern­izing state, whether Communist or non-Communist. The view of population as a highly sensitive topic survives; the walls of secrecy are not lowered.

A FORMAT FOR RESEARCH

The fact of China challenges population research as no other area in the world, past or present. The facts of Chinese numerical traditions, statistical retardations, and ideological orientations bar the collection, tabula­tion, and publication of the relatively precise and de­tailed data that are usually regarded as basic to formal population analysis. Hence research must have dimen­sions other than the objective ordering and the self­contained analysis of data on the numbers, distribution,

characteristics, and dynamics of populations. Moreover, the research must proceed without given base lines or referral points. The initial states from which changes are evaluated have to be established by procedures other than direct measurement.

Problems of population research in or on China are broader and deeper than those of relevant tech­niques. The questions that precede the initiation of re­search and the hypotheses that guide it must be derived externally, whether in the context of principles es­tablished in research that did not involve China or by analogy with the results of research on populations comparable to and divergent from that of China in known ways.

Approach to the study of the population of China must be demographic, but it must also be within a cross­disciplinary frame of interrelations, plausibilities, and consistencies. This approach is less hazardous in popu­lation studies than in most other fields of the behavioral sciences, for the variations and fluctuations in mortality and reproduction are held within the inherent limits of man's biological characteristics. Conditioning is major, but conditioning beyond specific ranges leads to the ex­tinction of the group or the modification of the vital processes. Thus there is incontrovertible containment of the plausible in population figures, whatever the period of time, the system of data collection, or the state of political control. The populations of limited areas can increase rapidly through immigration; they cannot increase suddenly and rapidly through the natural processes of maturation and reproduction. Decline can come swiftly as cataclysmic mortality or exodus. If this occurs, natural recovery is slow, for it involves the maturing of new generations of women in the repro­ductive ages. Gyrations in population numbers are likely to be artifacts of publication, tabulation, report­ing, or collection rather than reflections of population change.

The human span of life is basic to and conditions cultural continuity and social change. Change merges into transformation as new generations are conditioned to and accept as natural the new ways or the new order. Improved education, new skills, and advanced occupa­tions are acquired in youth or young adulthood. In development, each age cohort is more skilled, more adaptable, than the one preceding it. In revolution, hatreds and somber memories survive among the aging but soon become only hearsay or history to youth.

Statements of age transitions and age roles in life cycles are made because of the paramount importance of age in transition processes. The migrants to cities and industrial employment, the soldiers, and the brides are young people. Since it is now 15 years since 1949,

the major conditioning of China's youth is already that of the new era. Some 40 percent of the total population were born under Communism. Substantial proportions of babies now being born are in families whose memo­ries of a pre-Communist period are childhood ones. Five years from now, age cohorts entering the child­bearing years will have been born under Communism.

Continuities and continuing changes are alike related to man's processes of growth, maturity, and senescence. A population at a given time may be viewed in over­simplified form as successive layers. Contrary to the paleontological comparison, however, the newest layers are at the bottom, the oldest at the top. Family values, sex roles, and reproductive mores may be more suscept­ible to modification as the new cohorts of a Communist society mature in that society. In theory and by analogy, relative stability in birth rates would be expected to persist as long as the majority of those having children were conditioned under the traditional values of the rural society. Directives and exhortations would have little impact. Perhaps now directives and exhortations may have greater impact, especially if they proceed along with locally available facilities for limitation and subsistence deterrents to those who fail to heed the new goals or fail in attempts to achieve them.

16

This is patently speculative. It is speculation of a type essential to the formulation of hypotheses, though, even -if verification has to proceed through whatever tech- • niques can be derived at a distance. Moreover, it sug-gests a timing of change and a strategic time for re­search. The years of anticipated change relevant to population structure and dynamics are not those that have elapsed since 1949 but those that are now begin­ning. This is true whether the focus of interests is the analysis of the probable dynamics of the present or the projection of the numbers and characteristics of the population into future years.

THE APPROACH TO RESEARCH

If population is conditioning factor, correlate, and partial product of almost all other aspects of the Chinese natural base, historical development, economy, and society, population research is widely ramified in space, time, and topic. The statement of the pervasive inter­relations is essential, but generalities are hardly bases for research. The statement may be altered to the form that almost any aspect of Chinese man-resources rela­tionships, economy, society, politics, and polity may be studied from a demographic focus. There is also the form of statement that any aspect of economic and social. structure and process is influenced by the fact and. process of the Chinese population.

In formal methodological approaches, population size, structure, and dynamics have necessary associations that are analyzed on the basis of statistical data and their

A interrelations. The fundamental demographic process _ can be given specificity if a few key parameters are

known. These parameters are not known for China. There are not now, nor have there ever been, age dis­tributions, birth rates, death rates, or rates of popula­tion change for all China. The closest to an irreparable deficit, however, is the absence of a series of verifiable figures for the total population. Neither statistical manipulation nor argument by analogy yields other than conjecture as to the changing numbers of the Chinese. Even if successive counts for several areas within China could be evaluated, the major problem would remain. Differences between qualitatively evalu­ated figures at several time periods would not yield statistically valid measurements of the rate of growth for all China. It is even more hazardous to assume that such rates could be projected to yield estimates of popu­lation in years after the terminal figures.

The development of models for age structures and vital rates requires imagination, daring, and courage. The Chinese population is a biological group reproduc­ing largely within a closed universe. Rates of fertility are confined within the boundaries of the physiologically possible on the one hand, the biologically necessary on e the other. The death rate is confined within a range determined by the conditions of life and the hazards of living. These relations are necessary ones, and they are intrinsically interesting. Unfortunately for the estima­tion of the dynamics of the population of China, there is a range of plausible estimates of fertility and mortality that yield assumed but quite plausible relations. If the birth rate is approximately 40 per 1,000 total population and the population is changing only slightly over time, then the death rate must be somewhat less than 40, the expectation of life at birth somewhat higher than 25 years. If the birth rate is 45 and the population is increasing one-half of one percent a year, the same assumption can be made as to the level of the death rate. However, if the birth rate is 37, then under earlier as­sumptions as to rates of growth death rates must be sub­stantially lower than those assumed for the birth rate of 40. Given even a narrow range of freedom to assume a birth rate, a death rate, and a rate of growth, possible combinations of plausible assumptions are diverse in­deed. The problem is the escape from circularity in­volved in the continuing concentration on the decision as to hypothetical rates that yield patterns believed to be plausible. Is there, then, any component in the com­plex of fertility and mortality that can be determined with a reasonable degree of plausibility if not prob-

ability? If so, other variables may be estimated in nec­essary relationship to it-provided that the rate of population growth can be assumed.

The death rate is related directly to conditions of food, nutrition, sanitation, and contagion; it may fluctuate severely with natural calamity, civil disorder, and war. It is the basic regulator of numbers in the pre­modern society, the prime generator of growth in the modernizing society. Hence mortality is not the growth component that would be expected to yield the approxi­mation to an inherent characteristic of peoples of Han culture.

The birth rate is related directly to the traditions and values of the culture. It is aspect, product, and generat­ing force in the structure and functioning of the family and of related institutions. Age and form of marriage, roles and functions of women, attitudes toward child­bearing and family continuation, control practices and responses to pressure or to lightened pressure-this is a partial list of the institutional, attitudinal, and physical factors conditioning the childbearing of women and the fertility of the population. Some of these factors fluctu­ate. Age at marriage, marital separations, and control practices may differ according to the actual or perceived state of economy and society. Famine, epidemics, and flight may result in lowered fertility; highly favorable conditions may reduce pressures and raise rates of child­bearing as well as the survival rates of those who are born. These may be viewed as variations from a norm which is the fertility inherent in the institutions and values of the traditional culture under normal or modal conditions.

17

The argument as to fertility may be stated as a hy­pothesis that there is a modal level and pattern of fer­tility among peoples of Han culture. This is a hypothesis subject to empirical testing. If there is a modal level among those of Han culture, it should characterize Chinese peoples who were included in the statistical activities of colonial governments ruling Chinese peo­ple. It should also characterize peoples in areas of sur­vey or record within China. Variations in levels, whether within or outside China, should be associated with conditions suggestive of departure from an as­sumed modality in conditions of living and value struc­tures. Given the depth of the social and psychological associations of fertility, the levels and patterns of fer­tility among peoples whose cultures have been in­fluenced deeply by the Chinese should manifest re­productive behavior comparable to that modal in China or deviate from it in ways congruous with the departure of the culture itself from the modalities of China.

In basic research, therefore, the early if not the initial approach to the population of China lies in the analysis

of the population dynamics of those Chinese peoples outside China for whom demographic records are avail­able. Formal demographic analysis and incisively struc­tured population studies are logically preface to the in­tricate tasks of analysis and conjecture for all China.

RESEARCH ON CHINESE POPULATIONS AND THE POPULATION OF JAPAN

There are multiple approaches to Chinese population studies. All are essential to the achievement of the maximum precision and generality in knowledge of the present state and prospective development of the population of China. There is the central population of China, where figures substitute for the firm data of cen­suses and vital record systems. There are Chinese popu­lations where series of censuses and related data permit direct demographic analysis. Then there is Japan, with distinctive indigenous cultures, a period of major ab­sorption of Chinese culture in the seventh and later centuries, and then long centuries of internally struc­tured and often isolated development.

Analysis of the records for Chinese populations and Japan is the essential base for the formulation of hy­potheses and the evaluation of the probable with refer­ence to China itself. The basic hypothesis is that there are modal Chinese processes that are modified in ways appropriate to the response patterns of the culture. China itse1f is a land of immense diversity, and histori­cal, technologic.al, and subcultural variations are many. It is a necessary derivative of the main hypothesis that these, too, are patterned within the framework of Han culture. There are many demographic relationships that validate this hypothesis.

The numerical records of China and Japan have re­markable parallels and major diversities. The koseki record system of Japan traces back to the Taika Reform of the mid-seventh century A.D.; the pattern as then established was a replica of the Han dynasty code. For China, there is a record from 1749 to 1851; for Japan, there is a record from 1726 to 1852. China's century of record ended in the Tai'ping rebellion. It was followed by almost a century of disorganization, persistent eco­nomic retardation, chronic malnutrition and disease, and episodic catastrophes over limited or wider areas. japan's century of record ended with the opening to the West; it was followed by a century of economic, social, political, and demographic modernization, with in­creasingly adequate data to measure an increasingly com­plex transition.

The great statistical records for Chinese populations are the censuses, surveys, and registrations of Imperial Japan. The initial censuses taken by the Japanese were

those in Taiwan in 1905 and 1915. In the successive five-year periods from 1920 to 1940 Japan took comparable censuses in Japan itself, Taiwan, and the Kwantung Leased Territory. The South Manchuria Railway Zone , was covered in censuses from 1920 to 1935. Experimen-tal censuses were taken in hsien towns and great cities in Manchukuo in the 'thirties. In 1940 the Imperial census blanketed Japan, Taiwan, the Kwantung Leased Ter­ritory, and Manchukuo. Unfortunately for research, only simple tallies were made from the Manchukuo schedules before war priorities forced cancellation of further tabulation. However, these tallies include age by sex for groups classified as Han, Manchu, Mongol, and Muslim in the provinces, the cities, and the hsien.

There are many population studies that could be based on the analysis of official and other records for the Chinese populations ruled by Imperial Japan. These studies would contribute to comparative demography and the precision and expansion of generalization in many aspects of structure, function, and relationship in stability and mobility. Demographic, social, and eco­nomic interrelations could be studied at specific states of development, as well as in transition from one state to another. Within countries and areas there were peoples of Han and other cultures, and thus close and controlled comparisons are possible. There were various subcultures in the different Chinese areas, even within .. single areas. There were differences in indigenous de- • velopments, in the extent and duration of Japanese or Japanese-related rule, and in the policies of Japan within

18

the areas. Since time and data are comparable, the ore available for the mining is rich indeed.

RESEARCH ON AREAS IN CHINA

Data for the Republic of China and the provinces or hsien that are susceptible to analytical approaches, evaluative or substantive, are primarily those associated with the restoration of the pao-chia system in the 'thirties and the 'forties. In this period there were advances in the universities and beginnings in planning in govern­ment and economic institutions. Students were return-ing from abroad with advanced training. Field studies such as those of Chinese farm-operator households by the University of Nanking provided stimulus, model, and data for citation. Governments made comparable studies, such as the census of the city of Nanking in 1935. Data collecting proliferated in areas and institu­tions with Western contacts. Municipalities such as Shanghai, public health stations, hospitals, and the field areas of the Mass Education Movement are notable. e

The planning for a national census in 1950 was a by­product of the investigations and registrations associated

with the restoration or development of the pao-chia registration and control system in the war and postwar years. The "censuses" of hsien that are cited so often were parts of this process; some are censuses, some registration compilations, others an intermixture of the two. The most abundant data pertain to the Szechwan hsien and to the Cheng-tu and Kun-ming Lake surveys and registrations in Yunnan in the war years.

Publication at the national level was extensive, but it consisted primarily of pages and pages of figures on numbers of people and households for minor civil divi­sions. Occasionally, however, data susceptible to demo­graphic evaluation if not analysis became available. The most notable instance is the report on age for the popula­tion in 19 provinces and cities from the investigations of 1947.

The sparsity of publication by the government of the Peoples Republic requires no further comment.

The reiterative statement is relevant. Data are limited and defective. Available collections are incomplete. There are major possibilities for evaluation and analysis. Research that is feasible and significant is not being done.

RESEARCH AND THE FUTURE

The approach to research on Chinese populations and _ In the population of China leads quickly into the speci­

ficities of data systems, areas, cultures, and subcultures. Suggestions for research projects or research approaches to the population of China would be feasible. So also would an essay on the methodological problems in

demographic and related research in a situation where data are fugitive and defective and access is barred. These and other activities should be undertaken as parts of the process of opening the field of Chinese studies to demographers and alerting other scientists to the demographic aspects of the Chinese saga. The thesis here, however, is that neither the Chinese population nor research on it are simply area studies or cultural specializations. Rather, the Chinese development is a neglected dimension and a critical aspect of population research that is widely relevant without reference to space or time.

The research that is now beginning is geographically scattered and substantively multifaceted. This seems to be true within Mainland China and outside it. The future of that research is related not so much to our own miniscule approaches as to future developments within China. The concentrated and highly diversified scholar­ship that yields knowledge of status, relationships, and dynamics must be Chinese, and much of it must be done within China. The great contributions will come eventually from the scientists in the universities and the research institutions of a modernized China. This is the long future, however, and when it becomes reality that which has occurred in our times will also be history. Our present activities may contribute breadth and depth to contemporary knowledge and generalization. They may also develop analytical bases and theoretical frames for that future period when the Chinese, as the Euro­peans, conduct their own intensive and highly sophisti­cated research on the past, the present, and the future of their own population.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS

CONTEMPORARY CHINA

(Joint with American Council of Learned Societies) A. Doak Barnett (chairman), Alexander Eckstein, John

K. Fairbank, Walter Galenson, John M. H. Lindbeck, Robert A. Scalapino, G. William Skinner, George E. Taylor, Mary C. Wright; staff, Bryce Wood.

A conference on research on the government and politics of contemporary China was held at the Greyston Conference Center, Riverdale, N.Y. on April 17-18. The conference, which was an outgrowth of several informal meetings of political scientists sponsored by the joint committee during the past three years, was intended to facilitate discussion of approaches to understanding of the political system of Com­munist China, and to explore ways of developing further research. The following papers were written for the con­ference: "Political Research on Contemporary China: Some Problems and Opportunities," by William F. Dorrill of the

19

RAND Corporation, "The Role of Social Science in China Scholarship," by Chalmers A. Johnson, and "Political Sci­ence and the Study of Contemporary China," by James R. Townsend, both of the University of California, Berkeley.

In addition to the authors of these papers and members and staff of the joint committee, the participants in the conference included: Sheldon Appleton, Oakland Univer­sity; Davis B. Bobrow, and Glenn D. Paige, Prince­ton University; Howard L. Boorman, Michel C. Oksenberg, James D. Seymour, and David B. Truman, Columbia Uni­versity; Edward Friedman, and Bruce D. Larkin, Harvard University; Pendleton Herring; Harold C. Hinton, Institute for Defense Analyses; Paul E. Kovenock, University of Washington; Harold D. Lasswell, Yale University; John W. Lewis, Cornell University; David P. Mozingo, RAND Cor­poration; Irwin J. Schulman, University of Pittsburgh; H. Arthur Steiner, University of California, Los Angeles; Tang

Tsou, University of Chicago; Richard L. Walker, University of South Carolina; and Allan S. Whiting, U.S. Department of State.

CONTEMPORARY CHINA: SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ON CHINESE SOCIETY

G. William Skinner (chairman), John C. Pelzel, Irene B. Taeuber; staff, Bryce Wood.

The tenth and last seminar in the series sponsored by the subcommittee was held at Gould House, Dobbs Ferry, on March 31-April 2, 1964. The seminar was concerned with appraisal of the state of research on Chinese society, and with opportunities for the further development of such re­search in several disciplines. The papers prepared for the seminar were: "The Overseas Chinese: Past Studies and Future Needs" (summary), by Maurice Freedman, London School of Economics and Political Science; "The Communist Mainland: Social Anthropology, Past and Future," by Mr. Pelzel; "Sociology and the Study of Communist China," by H. F. Schurmann, University of California, Berkeley; "China's Population," by Mrs. Taeuber; "Research in Hong Kong: Past, Present and Possible," by Barbara E. Ward, Birkbeck College, University of London; "Notes on the De­velopment of Studies of Chinese Society," by the staff. Other participants in addition to the chairman of the subcom­mittee included Morton H. Fried, Columbia University; Marion J. Levy, Jr., Princeton University; Robert M. Marsh, and Arthur P. Wolf, Cornell University; and C. K. Yang, University of Pittsburgh.

GENETICS AND BEHAVIOR

Gardner Lindzey (chairman), Ernst W. Caspari, Theodo­sius Dobzhansky, David A. Hamburg, Jerry Hirsch, Gerald E. McClearn, J. N. Spuhler; staff, Ben Willerman.

Applications for admission to the summer research train­ing institute on behavioral genetics to be held by the Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, June 22 - July 31, under the cosponsorship of the committee and the University, were reviewed by the committee in February. Invitations to participate as "trainees" have been accepted by the follow­ing: Alexander Alland, Instructor in Anthropology, Hunter College; Carl J. Bajema, Assistant Professor of Biology, Mankato State College; Sidney L. Beck, U.S. Public Health Service Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Biology and Genetics, University of Michigan; Spiros J. Caramalis, In­structor in Political Science, University of South Carolina; George T. Davis, Professor of Animal Genetics, Montana State College; William E. Edwards, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, University of South Carolina; Alexander Kessler, Research Graduate Fellow in Genetics and Social Ecology, Rockefeller Institute; Dudley F. Peeler, Jr., Instructor in Neurosurgery (Research), University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson; Marvin B. Seiger, Post­doctoral Research Associate in Genetics, University of Notre

20

Dame; Michael H. Smith, Interim Instructor in Biology (zoology), University of Florida; David L. Sparks, U.S. Public Health Service Postdoctoral Fellow in Psychology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson; Delbert D. Thiessen, Research Associate in Medical Psychology, , Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation, La Jolla; Sister Frances Jerome Woods, Professor of Sociology, Our Lady of the Lake College; and the following graduate students: in animal breeding-D. Dal Kratzer, Iowa State University; in anthropology-Michael H. Crawford, and Mary W. Gunning, University of Washington; in biology-Eugene R. Katz, Brown University; in political science-Leslie L. Roos, Jr., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; in psy­chology-Douglas o. Draper, University of Tennessee; Gary C. Haltmeyer, and Richard G. Swensson, Purdue Uni­versity; Ralph L. Levine, and Dale A. Wise, University of California, Berkeley; Martin Manosevitz, University of Minnesota; Philippa L. Mathieu, University of Wisconsin; Robert M. Murphey, Jr., Vanderbilt University; in sociology and biostatistics-William D. Hogan, Tulane University; in zoology-Paul A. Buckley, Cornell University; Carol Ann McColm, University of Minnesota; Don E. Miller, Uni­versity of Wisconsin; in zoophysiology-Diane Russell, Washington State University.

INTELLECTIVE PROCESSES RESEARCH

William Kessen (chairman), Roger Brown, Jerome Kagan, Lloyd N. Morrisett, Paul H. Mussen, A. Kimball Romney, Harold W. Stevenson; staff, Ben Willerman. . e

The institute on cognitive development planned by the committee in cooperation with the University of Minnesota Institute of Child Development will be held at the Uni­versity from June 15 to July 24, under the direction of Mr. Stevenson. Twenty-nine applicants for admission have ac­cepted invitations to participate: Bernard Z. Friedlander, Research Psychologist, Mental Development Center, West­ern Reserve University; Janice Loeb, Staff Psychologist, Wisconsin Diagnostic Center, Madison; and the following graduate students in psychology: Thomas M. Achenbach, Sally Allen, Charles Clifton, Donald Foss, Kennedy Hill, and Thomas Landau, University of Minnesota; Leslie B. Cohen, University of California, Los Angeles; Rheta DeVries, University of Chicago; Gordon E. Finley, and Edward F. Kelly, Harvard University; Edward T. Fitz­gerald, and Allan Weinstock, University of California, Berkeley; Herbert Ginsburg, University of North Carolina; Robert A. Goodale, Tufts University; Larry R. Goulet, St. Louis University; John Hagen, and Carol Hanlon, Stanford University; Wilbur A. Hass, University of Michigan; Frank B. Murray, Johns Hopkins University; Vivian Paskal, Uni­versity of Pennsylvania; Arnold Sameroff, Cynthia P. Turnure, and James Turnure, Yale University; Keith G. Scott, University of Connecticut; Robert E. Shaw, Vander-bilt University; Joan S. Sibol, University of Delaware; A William C. Ward, Duke University. ..

LEARNING AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS

Lee J. Cronbach (chairman), Richard C. Atkinson, Eleanor J. Gibson, Evan R. Keislar, Judson T. Shaplin; staff, Ben Willerman.

II Participants in the summer research conference on learn­ing and the educational process, to be conducted by Stan­ford University with the assistance of the committee from June 21 to July 31, have been selected by the co-directors, Messrs. Atkinson and Cronbach, and the staff of the con­ference. As reported in the December 1963 issue of Items, the participants will meet in four groups, which will be con­cerned respectively with the following areas:

Learning, instruction, and pupil characteristics, with particular reference to the language arts, under the direc­tion of John B. Carroll: Leonard Cahen, Project Coordi­nator, National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical Abili­ties, Stanford University; Alfred E. Hall, Assistant Pro­fessor of Psychology and Education, Carnegie Institute of Technology; Duncan N. Hansen, Research Associate, In­stitute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University; Bryce B. Hudgins, Associate Professor of Education, Washington University; Thomas J. McHale, Research Assistant, Bureau of Educational Research, Uni­versity of Illinois; Jason Millman, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology and Measurement, Cornell Uni­versity; Joan L. Prentice, graduate student in education, Indiana University; Ezra V. Saul, Associate Professor of Educational Psychology, Tufts University; Douglas D.

..A C~ogren, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, Uni­"versity of Nebraska; Robert Stake, Associate Professor of

Educational Psychology and Measurement, University of Nebraska; George E. Temp, Assistant Professor of Educa­tion, University of California, Santa Barbara; M. L. Turner, Chief Research Officer, Australian Council for Educa­tional Research, and Lecturer, University of Melbourne.

Behavioral analysis of concept formation and transfer with implications for programmed instruction and use of computers in educational research, under the direction of Lawrence M. Stolurow: Irving Biederman, Teaching Fel­low in Psychology, University of Michigan; John A. Easley, Jr., Associate Professor of Education, University of Illinois; Frank R. Hartman, Associate Professor of Psychology, Dickinson College; Paul Johnson, graduate student in psy­chology, Johns Hopkins University; Bert Y. Kersh, Associ­ate Director, Teaching Research, Oregon State System of Higher Education, Monmouth; George Murphy, graduate student in education, University of Connecticut; Donald T. Payne, Research Associate, Audio-Visual Center, Indiana University; Joseph M. Scandura, Assistant Professor of Ed­ucation, State University of New York at Buffalo; Joanna P. Williams, Assistant Professor of Education, University of Pennsylvania; M. C. Wittrock, Assistant Professor of Educa­tion, University of California, Los Angeles; Karl Zinn,

tAJnstructor in Psychology, University of Michigan. • Sociocultural and organizational determinants of student

21

motivation, under the direction of Fred L. Strodtbeck: Norman Eagle, School Psychologist, Fort Lee, N. J. Public Schools; Gordon Foster, Instructor in Education, Miami University; Frank Garfunkel, Associate Professor of Educa­tion, Boston University; Oren W. Glick, Director of Evalua­tion, Youth Development Project, Kansas City; Edmund W. Gordon, Professor of Education, Yeshiva University; Edwin B. Hutchins, Assistant Director of Basic Research, Association of American Medical Colleges, Evanston; Charles P. Smith, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Prince­ton University; Anne E. Trask, Assistant Professor, Bureau of Educational Research, University of Illinois; Jonathan R. Warren, Director of Counseling and Research, Western Personnel Institute, Pasadena; Meda White, graduate stu­dent in sociology, University of Chicago.

Motivational determinants of achievement-oriented be­havior, under the direction of John W. Atkinson: Donald Fitzgerald, Assistant Professor of Education, University of Hawaii; Berj Harootunian, Associate Professor of Educa­tion, University of Delaware; Guy J. Johnson, graduate student in psychology, University of Texas; John C. McCullers, Assistant Professor of Psychology, San Jose State College; Robert D. Singer, Associate Professor of Psychol­ogy, State University of New York at Stony Brook; Marvin Taylor, Assistant Professor of Education, Queens College; Willavene Wolf, Assistant Professor of Education, Ohio State University.

MATHEMATICS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

Patrick Suppes (chairman), David Blackwell, James S. Coleman, Clyde H. Coombs, Robert Dorfman, R. Duncan Luce, Howard Raiffa; staff. Elbridge Sibley.

In addition to the research training institute on mathe­matics for political scientists and sociologists to be held by the committee this summer, as announced in Items, De­cember 1963 (see page 27 infra for participants), the com­mittee will sponsor a six-week senior conference on mathe­matical models of economic growth. This will be led by Lionel McKenzie, Professor of Economics at the University of Rochester, and will meet in Rochester, June 29 - Au­gust 7. Those expected to participate throughout the session are Emmanuel M. Drandakis, Assistant Professor of Eco­nomics, Yale University; Ken-ichi Inada, Professor of Economics, Tokyo Metropolitan University; Mordecai Kurz, Lecturer in Economics, Hebrew University; Daniel L. McFadden, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley; Maurice Macmanus, Professor of Econometrics, University of Birmingham, England; James A. Mirrlees, Fellow and Tutor in Economics, University of Cambridge; Hukukane Nikaido, Professor of Mathematics, Osaka University; and Jinkichi Tsukui, Technical Associ­ate, Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy, Harvard University. A number of other Ameri­can and foreign economists will participate in the confer­ence for shorter periods.

SOCIOLINGUISTICS Charles A. Ferguson (chairman), Joseph H. Greenberg,

Everett C. Hughes, Thomas A. Sebeok, John Useem; staff, Elbridge Sibley.

As announced in I terns, December 1963, an eight-week seminar on research on sociolinguistics will be held at Indi­ana University, June 22 - August 14, concurrently with the Linguistic Institute and under cosponsorship of the com­mittee and the Center for Applied Linguistics of the Modern Language Association of America. Mr. Ferguson will act as chairman of the seminar. Other participants will include Jack Berry, Professor, Mrican Studies Center, Michi­gan State University; William Bright, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles; Joshua A. Fishman, Professor of Psychology, Yeshiva Uni-

versity; Paul W. Friedrich, Associate Professor of Anthro­pology, University of Chicago; John J. Gumperz, Associate Professor of Near Eastern Languages, University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley; Einar Haugen, Professor of Scandinavian Languages, University of Wisconsin; Chester L. Hunt, Pro- e fessor of Sociology, Western Michigan University; Nathan Keyfitz, Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago; Heinz Kloss, Forschungsstelle fur Nationalitliten- und Sprachen­fragen, Kiel; William A. Labov, Department of Lin­guistics, Columbia University; Stanley Lieberson, As­sociate Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin; Leonard D. Savitz, Associate Professor of Sociology, Temple University; and William A. Stewart, Research Linguist, Center for Applied Linguistics. A number of others are expected to visit the seminar as consultants for short periods.

PERSONNEL RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS

The Committee on Social Science Personnel-George H. Hildebrand (chairman), Harry Alpert, Charles E. Gilbert, Samuel P. Hays, Dell H. Hymes, Irving L. Janis, and Paul Webbink-at its meeting on March 12-13 voted a total of 49 awards, 4 postdoctoral and 45 predoctoral, as follows:

Alan Arian, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Michigan State University, for research on ideological change in the legislative and administrative branches of the Is­raeli Government.

James M. Banner, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in history, Colum­bia University, for research on the foundations, struc­ture, and operation of New England Federalist politics, 1800-1815.

Robert M. Berdahl, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Minnesota, for completion of research in Germany on the Prussian Conservative party, 1866-76 (renewal).

Stephen D. Berger, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Harvard University, for completion of research in Germany on reintegration of German society after World War II (renewal).

H. Russell Bernard, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Illinois, for an ethnological comparison in Greece and the United States of two Greek sponge­fishing communities, one in each country.

Burton J. Bledstein, Ph.D. candidate in history, Princeton University, for research on the rise of social science in the United States, 1870-85.

Howard Bliss, Ph.D. candidate in government, Cornell University, for research in Belgium on Belgian partici­pation in regional organizations.

Steven J. Brams, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Northwestern University, for research on political inte­gration and the analysis of transaction flows.

Richard D. Brown, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, fgr research on the Boston Committee of Correspondence in the American Revolution, 1772-75.

Thomas J. Cottle, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, University of Chicago, for research on personality characteristics and patterns of family interaction.

22

William R. Ellis, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, for research on Ameri­can Negro protest movements, 1900-1964.

Allan N. Galpern, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for research in France on popu­lar religion in Champagne, 1550-1600.

John A. Gardiner, Ph.D. candidate in government, Har­vard University, for research on the decision-making process in criminal trial courts.

Carl L. Harter, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Tulane University, for research on fertility trends and social . change in the Deep South. •

George L. Hicks, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Illinois, for research on integrating and differentiating mechanisms in a complex society: com­munal settlements in the United States.

Michael F. Holt, Ph.D. candidate in history, Johns Hop­kins University, for research on the formation of the Republican party in Pittsburgh, 1848-61.

Christopher J. Hum, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, North­western University, for research in Puerto Rico on the process of industrialization and changing conceptions of equity.

Christopher H. Johnson, Ph.D. candidate in history, Uni­versity of Wisconsin, for research in Paris and Amster­dam on the influence of Etienne Cabet and the Icarian movement on the revolutionary psychology of France in 1848.

Harold B. Johnson, Jr., Ph.D. in history, University of Chicago, for anthropological training and for research in Portugal on medieval and contemporary peasant society in Galicia (renewal).

Eldon Kenworthy, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for research in Argentina on interrela­tions of political, social, and economic change.

Klaus F. Koch, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Univer­sity of California, Berkeley, for research in the Central Highlands of West New Guinea on law and justice of a Papuan group.

Kenneth P. Langton, Ph.D. candidate in political science,_ University of Oregon, for research in Jamaica on political socialization of secondary school students.

Michael Leiserson, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for an application and empirical as­sessment of mathematical models in the study of the U.S. Congress.

Robert C. Lind, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Stanford University, for an application of time series analysis to selected inventory series.

Charles Maier, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard Uni­versity, for comparative research in Europe on political conservatism in France, Germany, and Italy, 1918-24.

Marvin D. Markowitz, Ph.D. candidate in international relations and government, Columbia University, for research in the Republic of the Congo on the political role of Christian missions in that country, 1908-60 (renewal).

John S. Matthiasson, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for research on Baffin Island on Eskimo adjustment to Canadian law (renewal).

Catherine L. McArdle, Ph.D. candidate in political sci­ence, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for re­search in the Federal Republic of Germany on factors influencing its security policy.

Gordon R Mork, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Minnesota, for research in the Federal Republic of Germany on the National Liberal Party, 1867-80.

Samuel A. Morley, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research on the theory of investment of the firm.

Dale T. Mortensen, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Car­negie Institute of Technology, for the development and testing of a theory of aggregate consumption.

Michael D. Olien, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Uni­versity of Oregon, for research in Mexico on ritual co­parenthood in an urban community.

James L. Phillips, Ph.D. candidate in psychology, South­ern Illinois University, postdoctoral fellowship for study at Stanford University of mathematics applicable to development of theories of human interaction.

D. Michael Ray, Ph.D. candidate in geography, Univer­sity of Chicago, for research in Canada on industrial location in southern Ontario.

Miriam M. Reik, Ph.D. candidate in English literature, Columbia University, for research in England on Thomas Hobbes and his contemporary critics: an analy­sis of Restoration values and the sources of early mod­ern science.

Leslie L. Roos, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for computer simulation of the attitudinal effects of communications patterns in Turkey.

John Evans Rothenberger, Ph.D. candidate in anthropol­ogy, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Lebanon on conflict resolution or law in its social environment in a Sunni Muslim village in the Beqaa valley.

Edward B. Segel, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for research in England on the foreign policy of Sir John Simon, 1931-35.

James F. Shepherd, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in economics, University of Washington, for research in England and the United States on the American Colonial balance of payments, 1768-73.

23

David Beardsley Smith, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Columbia University, postdoctoral fellowship for re­search in Barbados and British Guiana on middle- and upper-class behavior and values.

Randolph Starn, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for research in Italy on Donato Giannotti and the Renaissance origins of modern political and social thought.

Victoria Steinitz, Ph.D. candidate in social psychology, Harvard University, for research on imbalanced atti­tudes (renewal).

Peter S. Stern, Ph.D. candidate in history, Princeton Uni­versity, for research in France on the "Right" and the evolution of French war aims, 1914-19.

Walter S. Stolz, Ph.D. candidate in mass communication, University of Wisconsin, postdoctoral fellowship for study at Harvard University and research on children's grammatical "rules."

Elizabeth S. Studley, Ph.D. candidate in history, Johns Hopkins University, for research on party structure and organization in Georgia politics, 1865-72.

Paul Tennant, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Uni­versity of Chicago, for research m Canada on French Canadian participation in national political parties, 1867-1964.

Judith P. Ward, Ph.D. candidate in economic history, University of Wisconsin, for research in France on French investment in Latin America, 1880-1914.

James Wallace Wilkie, Ph.D. candidate in history, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research in Mexico on the social revolution and the rise of Lazaro Cardenas, 1928-34.

Marvin Zonis, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massa­chusetts Institute of Technology, for research in Iran on impediments to political consensus (renewal).

FACULTY RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

The Committee on Faculty Research Fellowships-John Useem (chairman), Dorwin Cartwright, Lawrence E. Fouraker, John D. Lewis, A. J. Mayer, and Charles Sellers­held the second of its two meetings scheduled for 1963-64 on March 16-17. It voted to award 13 fellowships, as follows:

Richard M. Abrams, Assistant Professor of History, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research on the re­flection of shifts in power among competing American business groups in state and national politics in the late nineteenth century.

Clopper Almon, Jr., Assistant Professor of Economics, Harvard University, for research on detailed forecast­ing of long-range balanced growth in the American economy.

Frank Barron, Research Psychologist, University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, for research in Ireland on social forces affecting creative achievement.

John S. Chipman, Professor of Economics and Statistics, University of Minnesota, for research on the theory of preference.

Allan D. Coult, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Uni­versity of California, Davis, for research on the cor­relates of cross-cousin marriage.

Susan M. Ervin, Assistant Professor of Speech, University of California, Berkeley, for research in France on so­ciolinguistic variations in French request forms.

Harvey Goldberg, Professor of History, University of Wis­consin, for research in Europe on the French Commu­nist movement, 1920-40.

Irwin Katz, Associate Professor of Psychology, New York University, for research on situational determinants of the quality of performance by Negroes in biracial settings.

Samuel J. Kone£sky, Professor of Political Science, Brook­lyn College, for research on the Supreme Court and the constitutional tradition in America.

Gerhard Loewenberg, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, Mount Holyoke College, for research in the Federal Republic of Germany on the functions of the Bundestag in its system of government.

David Owen, Professor of History, Harvard University, for research in England on London's Metropolitan Board of Works, 1855-89, as a transitional attempt to deal with problems of urban government and administration.

Frank M. Tamagna, Professor of Economics, American University, for research in India, Australia, and Japan on central banking and monetary policies and their relation to economic growth.

Mack Walker, Assistant Professor of History, Harvard University, for research in Germany on efforts to pre­serve a closed communitarian society against demo­graphic and technological changes in the nineteenth century.

POLITICAL THEORY AND LEGAL PHILOSOPHY FELLOWSHIPS

The Committee on Political Theory and Legal Philosophy Fellowships-J. Roland Pennock (chairman), David Easton, Jerome Hall, John H. Hallowell, Robert G. McCloskey, and Sheldon S. Wolin-at its meeting on March 27 awarded 6 fellowships:

John R. Champlin, Ph.D. candidate in public law and government, Columbia University, for study in Eng­land of ethical and political theory.

Fred M. Frohock, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of North Carolina, for research on the rela­tionship between classical political philosophy and contemporary behavioral theory.

James L. Green, Ph.D. candidate in philosophy, Colum­bia University, for research in England and the United States on the doctrine of responsibility in crimi­nallaw.

Isaac Kramnick, Ph.D. candidate in government, Har­vard University, for research in England on the life and political thought of Henry St. John, Viscount Boling­broke (renewal).

Roger D. Masters, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Yale University, for research in France on the relationship between human nature, natural right, and politics in Rousseau's political philosophy.

Robert S. Summers, Assistant Professor of Law, Univer­sity of Oregon, for study in England of law and coercion, and legal reasoning' and philosophy.

24

GRANTS-IN-AID

The Committee on Grants-in-Aid-Guy E. Swanson (chairman), Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., David H. French, Theodore S. Hamerow, Holland Hunter, and William H. Riker-held the second of its two meetings scheduled for e 1963-64 on March 30-31. It voted to award 25 grants-in-aid, as follows:

Russell H. Barrett, Professor of Political Science, Uni­versity of Mississippi, for research on integration at the University of Mississippi.

Alan W. Brownsword, Assistant Professor of History, Long Beach State College, for research on the political history of Connecticut, 1817-35 (renewal of grant made in 1961-62).

Norman Dain, Assistant Professor of History, Rutgers­The State University, Newark, for research on concepts of insanity in the United States, 1865-1945 (renewal).

William V. D'Antonio, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Notre Dame, for a comparative study of the role of voluntary associations and political par­ties in party organization and local elections.

James C. Davis, Assistant Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania, for research in Italy on methods used by European families to conserve their fortunes, from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries.

James. Ea~rs, Associate Professor of Political Economy, Umversity of Toronto, for research in Canada on the making of Canadian national security policy, 1945-65 (supplementary to Faculty Research Fellowship awarded in 1962-63).

Robert Forster, Associate Professor of History, Dartmol1th. College, for research in France on its provincial. nobility in the eighteenth century (supplementary to Faculty Research Fellowship awarded in 1961-62).

Paul Goodman, Instructor in History, Brooklyn College, for research on the origins and evolution of the Democratic-Republican party of the South, 1780-1815 (renewal).

Robert A. Gordon, Assistant Professor of Social Rela­tions, Johns Hopkins University, for research on family and peer relations of gang delinquents.

Lydia Jane Hainline, Acting Assistant Professor of An­thropology, University of California Riverside for a preliminary study in the Yap Islands 'of human ~cology and population genetics.

C. Warren Hollister, Associate Professor of History Uni­versity of California, Santa Barbara, for research ~n the reign of Henry I, King of England, 1100-1135.

Charles H .. H~bbell, Assistant Professor of Sociology, State UmversI.ty of Iowa, for a matrix-~lgebra analysis of the adaptatIons of group structure to mternal strains.

William Jaffe, Professor of Economics, Northwestern Uni­versity, for research on the life and works of Leon Walras.

Gabriel Kolko, Ca~brid$e, Massachusetts (Ph.D. in his­tory, Harvard UmversIty), for research on the business community and the formation of national security poli­cies since 1946 (supplementary to grant for research on national security policy awarded in 1962-63).

Basil J. Moore, Assistant Professor of Economics wes_ leyan University, for research on the supply, d~mand,

and price determination of corporate equities in the United States.

Philip M. Raup, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota, for research in Europe on postwar trends in land policy.

Robert W. Resek, Assistant Professor of Economics, Uni­versity of Illinois, for research on the socioeconomic factors affecting banking.

Gaston V. Rimlinger, Associate Professor of Economics, Rice University, for research in the Federal ReJ;>ublic of Germany on recent developments in its SOCIal se­curity policy.

David J. Saposs, Adjunct Professor of International Labor, School for International Service, American Uni­versity, for research on the history of labor ideologies.

James A. Storing, Professor of Political Science, Colgate University, for research in Norway and Denmark on the organization, administration, and operation of the Norwegian Ombudsmann.

Charles Tilly, Lecturer in Sociology, Harvard University, for research on social change and political upheaval in France, 1830-1960.

Kathryn Turner, Assistant Professor of History, Wellesley College, for research on the adaptation of English Law in America to 1860.

Irwin Unger, Assistant Professor of History, University of California, Davis, for research on the career of Salmon P. Chase.

Andrew G. Whiteside, Associate Professor of History, Queens College, for research on the extreme Right in Austria, 1867-1938.

D eil S. Wright, Associate Professor of Political Science, State University of Iowa, for a survey of the personal characteristics and attitudes of state administrative officials.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

The Committee on International Organization-Inis L. Claude, Jr. (chairman), Lincoln P. Bloomfield, William Diebold, Jr., Leland M. Goodrich, Ernst B. Haas, H. Field Haviland, Jr., Stanley Hoffmann, Walter R. Sharp, and Richard C. Snyder-met on March 13 to make its first awards under this new program. Grants for research have been offered to 10 scholars, as follows:

Richard M. Buxbaum, Acting Associate Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Europe on the role of trade associations in the formula­tion of antitrust policies within the European Economic Community.

Raymond H. Dawson, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina, for research in Europe on decision making in weapons selection at the international level, with special reference to operations research groups in the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza­tion (joint WIth George E. Nicholson, Jr.).

John S. Gillespie, Assistant Professor of Political Science,

• Tulane UnIversity, for research in Canada on the ex­tent of Canadian involvement in the programs and decisions of the International Labor Organization.

25

Leon Gordenker, Associate Professor of Politics, Prince­ton University, for research in Europe and Africa on the influence exerted by the United Nations and spe­cialized agencies on national governments through pro­grams in economic and social fields.

Harold K. Jacobson, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of Michigan, for research in Europe and Africa on relations between new states and func­tional international organizations.

Lloyd Jensen, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois, for research in Europe and the United States on international nuclear safeguards: the experience of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the European Nuclear Energy Agency, and EURATOM.

George E. Nicholson, Jr., Professor of Statistics, Uni­versity of North Carolina, for research in Europe on decision making in weapons selection at the interna­tional level, with special reference to operations re­search groups in the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza­tion (joint with Raymond H. Dawson).

Adrian Pelt, Hermance, Switzerland, for research in the United Kingdom of Libya on the events leading to its establishment under the guidance of the United Na­tions in 1950-51.

George Stambuk, Associate Professor of International Affairs, George Washington University, Naval War College Center, Newport, R.I., for research in EU,rope on political aspects of supranational functional organi­zation, with special reference to the European Eco­nomic Community.

Eric Stein, Professor of Law, University of Michigan, for research in Europe on assimilation of national laws as a function of European integration.

GRANTS FOR ASIAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Asian Studies, of the Ameri­can Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Re­search Council-John A. Pope (chairman), Robert I. Crane, H. G. Creel, Paul S, Dull, L. A. Peter Gosling, and John L. Landgraf-met on February 15-16. It has awarded 17 grants for research, as follows:

Aziz Ahmad, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies, Uni­versity of Toronto, for research on Islamic modernism in India and Pakistan.

Michael M. Ames, Assistant Professor of Sociology, McMaster University, for analysis of questionnaire data on value and attitude changes in Ceylon (renewal).

John H. Broomfield, Instructor in History, University of Michigan, for research on social and political relation­ships of the Bhadralok and Muslim communities in Bengal, 1900-1912.

Robert E. Brown, Assistant Professor of Music, Wesleyan University, for a study of melodic improvisation and raga structure in South Indian art music.

Robert I. Crane, Professor of History, Duke University, for research and consultation on the Dictionary of In­dian Nationalist Biography project.

James A. Dator, Instructor in Political Science, Rikkyo Daigaku (St. Paul's University), Tokyo, for research on the sociopolitical personality of Japanese and Ameri­can members of the Soka Gakkai.

William J. Gedney, Professor of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Languages, University of Michigan, for research on comparative Thai linguistics (renewal).

John W. Hall, Professor of History, Yale University, for research on Tokugawa Japan: an institutional study of the Bizen Domain.

Mantle Hood, Director, Institute of Ethnomusicology, University of California, Los Angeles, for a comparative study in musical style of gender wajang literature of Bali.

Jung-pang Lo, Research Assistant Professor of Far East­ern History, University of Washington, for research on the Chinese navy in the Ming and early Ch'ing Periods.

John R. McLane, Assistant Professor of History, North­western University, for research on politics and eco­nomic change in Bengal, 1850-1920.

Johanna M. Menzel, Assistant Professor of History, Vas­sar College, for a study of a provincial gentry family, the Lins of Taichung, Taiwan.

David W. Plath, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, State University of Iowa, for a field study of idealistic communities in modern Japan.

Edward H. Schafer, Professor of Oriental Languages, University of California, Berkeley, for research on the Vermilion Bird: Tang images of the South.

Thomas C. Smith, Professor of History, Stanford Uni­versity, for research on social classes and relative shares of national income in Japan, 1600-1868, and on aris­tocracy in modern Japanese history, 1550-1868.

Tung Li Yuan, Subject Cataloger, Library of Congress, for a bibliography of Chinese art and archaeology.

Leon M. Zolbrod, Assistant Professor of Japanese and Comparative Literature, Indiana University, for re­search on the impact of Chinese drama and fiction on Edo writers and intellectuals.

GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

In addition to the awards listed in the March issue of Items, the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies, has made the following grant for research:

Hugh M. Hamill, Jr., Associate Professor of History, Uni­versity of Connecticut, for research in Mexico and the United States on propaganda and psychological war­fare in New Spain, 1799-1821.

GRANTS FOR SLAVIC AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES

The Subcommittee on Slavic and East European Grants (of the Joint Committee on Slavic Studies sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies)-Donald W. Treadgold (chairman), John C. Campbell, David T. Cattell, Victor Erlich, and Norman M. Kaplan-met on February 8. It has made the following 17 grants for research:

Elizabeth Bacon, Instructor in Anthropology, City College, New York, for research on society and culture in Central Asia, 1865-1964.

26

Patricia Blake, Research Associate, Russian Institute, Columbia University, for a study of Isaac Babel.

Deming Brown, Professor of Slavic Languages and Lit­eratures, University of Michigan, for research on recent developments in Soviet Russian prose fiction. til

Zdenek David, Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan, for research on the religious and social thought of Vladimir Sergeevich Soloviev.

Alexander Erlich, Associate Professor of Economics, Columbia University, for research on Marxian theories of economic development and their relevance for the Soviet industrialization policies.

George Fischer, Professor of Government, Cornell Uni­versity, for research on recruitment patterns of the Soviet elite: origins and careers of full-time party ex­ecutives.

Joseph Frank, Associate Professor of Comparative Liter­ature, Rutgers - The State University, for research on Dostoevsky as seen against the background of Russian cultural history.

Maurice Friedberg, Associate Professor of Classics, Hunter College, for research on Western European and Ameri­can fiction, drama, and films in the Soviet Union since 1953, and their possible impact on the Soviet public.

Jarija Gimbutas, Visiting Lecturer in Slavic Languages, University of California, Los Angeles, for research on the ancient Slavs.

Franklyn D. Holzman, Professor of Economics, Tufts University, for research on Soviet foreign trade pricing and exchange rate policy, 1928-60.

Maria Kuncewicz, Visiting Professor of Slavic Languages, University of Chicago, for a study of five Western pro" files in Polish literature. _

Woodford D. McClellan, Assistant Professor of History, U.S. Military Academy, for research on the history of the Russian section of the International Workingmen's Association, 1868-75.

Marc Raeff, Associate Professor of History, Columbia University, for research on the institutional and intel­lectual roots of the Russian intelligentsia.

Michael Samilov, Associate Professor of Slavic Linguistics, Yale University, for research on the history of the Macedonian language.

George C. Sou lis, Associate Professor of History, Indiana University, for research on Byzantium and the Balkans in the Middle Ages.

M~c M. Szeftel, Professor of History, University of Wash­mgton, for research on the idea of state in Russia be­tween the "Time of the Troubles" and the French Revolution.

Arthur Voyce, San Francisco, California, for research on the arts of modern Russia.

1964 SUMMER RESEARCH TRAINING INSTITUTE ON MATHEMATICS FOR POLITICAL

SCIENTISTS AND SOCIOLOGISTS

Selection of applicants for admission to the summer re­search training institute on mathematics .for political scier_ tists and sociologists, which was announced in the Decem­ber 1963 issue of Items and which will be held at Stanford

University from July 13 to August 21, has been made by a subcommittee of the Committee on Mathematics in Social Science Research, sponsor of the institute. The following 25 persons have accepted invitations to participate:

I William E. Alexander, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Syracuse University

Thomas R. Burns, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Stan­ford University

Linwood W. Dodge, Coadjutant Lecturer in Preparatory Mathematics, Newark Extension Center, Rutgers­The State University

Douglas S. Gatlin, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wake Forest College

Peter M. Hall, Assistant Professor of Sociology, State Uni­versity of Iowa

Irving Howards, Associate Professor of Government, and Associate Director, Public Affairs Research Bureau, Southern Illinois University

John B. Hudson, Assistant Professor of Child Develop­ment and Family Relationships, Cornell University

Kenneth Janda, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University

Sungjook Junn, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Mercer University

Jiri T. Kolaja, Associate Professor of Sociology, Univer­sity of Kentucky

Stefan Kwiatkowski, Research Associate, Main School of Pla"ming and Statistics, Warsaw (Fellow in Sociology, Stanford University)

James D. Laing, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Stanford University

Richard H. Lent, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Uni­versity of Pittsburgh

Leo Meltzer, Associate Professor of Psychology and Sociol­ogy, Cornell University

Peter A. Morrison, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Brown University

Charles L. Mulford, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Grinnell College

Stanley Naparst, graduate student in political science, University of California, Berkeley, and Social Science Analyst, U.S. Forest Service

Leon A. Pastalan, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Uni­versity of Toledo

Bruce M. Pringle, Associate Professor of Sociology, Southern Methodist University

James A. Robinson, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, Northwestern University

Romesh Shah, Ph.D. candidate in political science, New York University

Richard G. Sheridan, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Tennessee

Seymour Spilerman, Ph.D. candidate in sociology and operations research, Johns Hopkins University

•

Henry Teune, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania

Eugene S. Uyeki, Associate Professor of Sociology, Case Institute of Technology

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE TRAVEL GRANTS

Under the program administered by the Committee on International Conference Travel Grants-George Garvy (chairman), Joseph B. Casagrande, Rowland A. Egger, Louis Morton, Matilda White Riley, Roger W. Russell, and Harry Venneman-additional awards have been made, at its meeting on April 24 and meetings of its staff subcommittee on March 6 and April 1, to assist social scientists resident in the United States to attend international meetings out­side this country:

International Association of Agricultural Economists, Twelfth International Conference of Agricultural Econ­omists, Lyon, August 24 - September 3,1964

Frank T. Bachmura, Associate Professor of Economics, Indiana University

Earl O. Heady, Professor of Economics and of Agricul­tural Economics, Iowa State University

D. Gale Johnson, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago

Lee R. Kolmer, Professor of Economics, Iowa State Uni­versity

Howard C. Williams, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University

Thirty-sixth International Congress of Americanists, Barcelona, August 31-September 2; Madrid, September 4-5; Seville, September 8-9, 1964

Howard F. Cline, Director, Hispanic Foundation, Library of Congress

Bailey W. Diffie, Professor of History, City College, New York

• Leopold Pospisil, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Yale University

Bernard J. Siegel, Professor of Anthropology, Stanford University

27

Edward H. Spicer, Professor of Anthropology, University of Arizona

Seventh International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Moscow" August 3-10, 1964 William N. Fenton, Assistant Commissioner, New York

State Museum and Science Service • Leopold Pospisil, Associate Professor of Anthropology,

Yale University

A. Kimball Romney, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Stanford University

G. William Skinner, Professor of Anthropology and Asian Studies, Cornell University

International Geographical Union, Twentieth International Geographical Congress, London, July 19-28,1964

John P. Augelli, Professor of Geography, University of Kansas

Andrew H. Clark, Professor of Geography, University of Wisconsin

Saul B. Cohen, Professor of Geography, Boston Uni­versity

• Grant for attendance at two meetings. as indicated.

John Fraser Hart, Professor of Geography, Indiana Uni­versity

Richard Hartshorne, Professor of Geography, University of Wisconsin

David Lowenthal, Research Associate, American Geo­graphical Society

Malcolm A. Murray, Associate Professor of Geography, Miami University

Allan L. Rodgers, Professor of Geography, Pennsylvania State University

William Warntz, Research Associate, American Geo­graphical Society

International Political Science Association, Sixth World Congress, Geneva, September 21-25, 1964

Charles Aikin, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley

Carl Beck, Associate Professor of Political Science, Uni­versity of Pittsburgh

Donald C. Blaisdell, Professor of Political Science, City College, New York

Bernard C. Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Uni­versity of Wisconsin

R. Taylor Cole, Professor of Political Science, Duke Uni­versity

Gottfried Dietze, Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University

Louise W. Holborn, Research Professor of Government, Connecticut College

• Robert E. Lane, Professor of Political Science, Yale Uni­versity

• Walter H. C. Laves, Professor of Government, Indiana University

• Seymour M. Lipset, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley

Roy C. Macridis, Professor of Political Science, State Uni­versity of New York at Buffalo

• Richard L. Merritt, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Yale University

Norman D. Palmer, Professor of Political Science, Uni­versity of Pennsylvania

Frank A. Pinner, Associate Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University

Robert H. Salisbury, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, Washington University

• Grant for attendance at two meetings, as indicated.

Roberta S. Sigel, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wayne State University

K. H. Silvert, Professor of Government, Dartmouth College .

Henry Wells, Associate Professor of Political Science, Uni--versity of Pennsylvania •

International Social Science Council, Second Conference on Data Archives in the Social Sciences, Paris, September 28-30,1964

David Easton, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago

• Robert E. Lane, Professor of Political Science, Yale University

• Walter H. C. Laves, Professor of Government, Indiana University

• Seymour M. Lipset, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley

• Richard L. Merritt, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Yale University

Latin American Sociological Association and Colombian Sociological Association, Seventh Latin American Con­gress on Sociology, Bogota, July 14-19, 1964

Theodore Caplow, Professor of Sociology, Columbia Uni­versity

Charles Y. Glock, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley

Talcott Parsons, Professor of Sociology, Harvard Uni­versity

T. Lynn Smith, Graduate Research Professor of Sociology,a, University of Florida WJ

Gresham M. Sykes, Executive Officer, American Socio­logical Association

European Society for Rural Sociology, and Rural Socio­lO[J£cal Society, First World Congress on Rural Sociology, Dzjon, August 16-20, 1964

J. Allan Beegle, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University

Alvin L. Bertrand, Professor of Sociology and Rural Sociology, Louisiana State University

Louis J. Ducoff, Chief, Farm Population Branch, Eco­nomic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agri­culture

E. A. Wilkening, Professor of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

230 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

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

Directors, 1964: BERNARD BAILYN, ABRAM BERGSON, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, JOSEPH B. CASAGRANDE, THOMAS C. COCHRAN, JAMES S. COLEMAN, HAROLD

C. CONKLIN, KARL A. Fox, WILLIAM J. GOODE, JR., MORRIS H. HANSEN, CHAUNCY D. HARRIS, PENDLETON HERRING, GEORGE H. HILDEBRAND, NATHAN

KEYFITZ, THOMAS S. KUHN, STANLEY LEBERGOTT, GARDNER LINDZEY, QUINN McNEMAR, FRANCO MODlGLlANI, LOUIS MORTON, J. ROLAND PEI~NC)CI!". DON K. PRICE, LEO F. SCHNORE, HERBERT A. SIMON, GUY E. SWANSON, DAVID B. TRUMAN, JOHN W. TUKEY, CHARLES WAGLEY, DONALD YOUNG

Officers and Staff: PENDLETON HERRING, President; PAUL WEBBINK, Vice·President; ELBRIDGE SmLEY, Executive Associate; BRYCE WOOD, ELEANOR C.

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

28