SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 25 . NUMBER 1 . MARCH 1971 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

HISTORY AS SOCIAL SCIENCE: EXCERPTS FROM THE REPORT OF THE HISTORY PANEL

OF THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES SURVEY*

THE REPORT on history is concerned mainly with those persons-inside but also outside the historical profession -who are engaged in historical work of a social science character, and with that part of historical study and training that falls within the scope of social science. This focus has no invidious implications. On the contrary, the diversity of historical work reflects the diversity of the historian's interests and of the evidence available to him; this diversity is a valuable, even indispensable, feature of the discipline.

Because history is not a unitary discipline, however, an inquiry of this kind assumes a special character. It cannot simply be addressed by the profession to the out­side world. Instead it is addressed on behalf of one seg­ment of the profession to both the discipline and the outside world. W'e have tried to convey the state of that part of history that is or would be social science, and to offer recommendations that would promote and im­prove this kind of work. As will be seen, many historians are inclined to greet such recommendations with doubt, scorn, anxiety, or hostility.

• These selections are reprinted (with minor changes) by permission of the publisher from History as Social Science, edited by David S. Landes and Charles Tilly, to be published on March 19, 1971 (Engle­wood Cliffs, N.J.: Spectrum Books, Prentice-Hall, Inc.). Copyright © by Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971. The Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey was jointly sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council and the Social Science Research Council and con­ducted by a central planning committee whose members were chairmen and cochairmen of panels in various social science fields. The editors of History as Social Science were respectively chairman and cochairman of the History Panel; its other members were Howard F. Cline, Sig­mund Diamond, Samuel P. Hays, and Thomas C. Smith.

selected by David S. Landes and Charles Tilly

We believe the promotion of social scientific history is in the interest of all historians. The changing char­acter of historical evidence, the development of new techniques and concepts in related disciplines, the grow­ing body of research by nonhistorians into historical problems-all these imply that even those historians who are not themselves working in social science have to learn to read it and use it, if only to teach their stu­dents. What is more, most of the material facilities required to promote social scientific history are by their nature facilities for the entire discipline. Better libraries, easier retrieval and dissemination of data, more generous arrangements for pre- and postdoctoral research, and similar improvements redound directly or indirectly to the benefit of all.

In return, these gains are dependent on the cooper­ation of all, for students of history as social science will always need training in all aspects of the discipline. If anything, the growing sophistication of social scientific techniques makes it all the more important for prac­titioners of these techniques to know and appreciate the humanistic approach to historical knowledge. We can­not afford to gain a world of numbers and models, only to lose our historical souls in the process.

There is already a large body of literature on the nature and method of history. There have been pub­lished in recent years a number of essays on the relation of history to social science. Many of these raise difficult epistemological questions about the nature of truth and evidence that we prefer to avoid. We have barely touched the classic questions of historical knowledge: To what degree can the historian ever free himself from the biases

I

of his own time and place? Should he? Is there a special mode of historical knowledge based on empathy-the ability to put oneself into the skins of other people in other times and places? Are there laws, cycles, repeti­tions, irreversible trends in history? We have not seri­ously examined the role of historical thinking and materials outside the discipline of history-an important question in a day when economists, sociologists, political scientists, and many others are attempting to work with historical evidence. Instead, we have concentrated our attention on history as a discipline and profession, with special attention to the social scientific sector, loosely defined. The kinds of questions we ask are: Who are the historians? What do they do? How do they work? What do they want and need? And what can be done about it?

The first large section of the report treats the dis­cipline of history in general and seeks to define the char­acteristics of social scientific history in terms of ideal types. It includes summary findings of a survey of about 600 working historians which the panel undertook in the spring of 1968. The next section describes some of the varieties of social scientific history, their achieve­ments, limitations, and promise. Then we tum to the resources, working, and needs of the profession-first in teaching, then in research. A special section is devoted to library problems; another, to the role of foreign scholars. Finally, we sum up the observations and rec­ommendations made along the way.

THE NATURE OF HISTORY

If we are to concentrate on history' as social science, we need some sense of what sets history off from other social sciences. The contribution of history is perspec­tive. This is no small matter. It is only too easy and tempting for each generation (especially the more sensi­tive members of each generation) to see the tests and troubles of its own time as unique. For many, what is past is past, what matters is now and sometimes later. This is particularly true of social engineers who, how­ever much they may be motivated by the recollection of past wrongs, do not want to be discouraged by the record of past mistakes. In defense of this "ostrich ap­proach," it must be admitted that history has been misused as a stick to beat reformers and block change. Yet never is the perspective of history so valuable as when men try to shape their destiny, that is, try to change history. Then, if ever, man has to know how he came to this pass; otherwise he is condemned to repeat his errors or at best to blunder through one difficulty only to arrive at another. In this sense history, if read correctly, should help make men wise.

Not everyone would agree. There has always been a

2

body of opinion within the historical profession that has denied the possibility of an objective history-for the very cogent reason that it is simply impossible for the historian to perceive the past except through eyes dis­torted by personal values and sympathies. Each man, in this view, is his own historian. As for the lessons of history, men choose these to their purpose. De Gaulle called on France's tradition of greatness and power to justify his break with NATO; his adversaries pointed to the experience of two world wars to show the necessity of European cooperation. Israelis cite Jewish history to demonstrate the justice and passion of their attachment to the Holy Land; Palestinians point to their own history -as recorded in the Bible-to argue that they were there first. Some supporters of the American military intervention in Vietnam have drawn an analogy to Munich and the appeasement of the 1930's to justify firmness in the face of totalitarian aggression; some of their opponents have gone back to ancient Athens for lessons in the folly of arrogance.

History is not alone in this respect. One could cite any number of other examples of self-serving analogy, even of conflicting inferences from the same body of evidence, from any of the behavioral and social sciences. Indeed, a lawyer might remark that this is the human condition: people will always see things differentIy­that is what keeps the courts busy.

It would be a serious mistake, however, to infer from these difficulties that our ignorance is inevitable and irreducible. Just as courts have developed over time adversary procedures and principles of evidence designed to promote the pursuit of truth and justice, so social scientists, including historians, have invented techniques for the collection, verification, and appraisal of evidence as a means of understanding man's motivations and behavior. The understanding that results cannot be complete or definitive: the social scientist typically deals with a realm of probability, but as his techniques have become more refined and powerful, the probabilities and usefulness of his answers have increased.

The gains have been greatest in those areas where the social scientist has been able to simplify his problems by exclusion of all but a few paramount variables. The best example is economics. History, by comparison, has and always will have a hard time: the matter to be studied is inherently complex (some would say, infinitely com­plex) and resistant to simplification. That, however, only makes the task harder and the results of inquiry necessarily looser. It does not rule out a closer approach to the goal of truth.

Historians have often treated the complexity and particularity of their material as a good in itself. They have pursued the essential wisdom by immersing them-

VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1

selves in a particular time and place until they absorb its ethos, its rules of action, its everyday routines. The deep immersion sometimes produces marvelous reconstruc­tions of the past, as when a Jacob Burkhardt takes us to Renaissance Italy. It also has a "privatizing" effect: his-. torical work becomes an intensely personal thing and hence indivisible, noninterchangeable, perhaps even in­communicable.

This point of view has interesting consequences for the historian's attitude toward research as an activity competing with other activities for scarce time. If the product of research is personal, it is not necessarily cumulative or additive. Some research is worth doing because of the subject and the person doing it, but much work is a waste of time, the writer's and the readers'. Hence the remark of one of our correspondents: "We need Malthusian restraint in research, not expan­sion, support, or encouragement. Demand quality and accept no substitutes." For similar reasons historians are often suspicious of courses in methodology and hostile to any kind of normalization of research procedure. If historiography is art, it cannot and must not be reduced to some kind of routine.

These values have, to be sure, a strong intellectual justification. Insofar as history attempts to see things whole, it is more dependent than other disciplines on individual perceptions. Interpretation and understand­ing are never routine; there are too many variables to reduce the analysis to some.kind of procedure. Hence it is important that each scholar dig down to bedrock. He comes with new questions and concepts to old material as well as new; and if he permits himself to rely entirely on the ruminations of others, he has given half the game away.

It is one thing to justify this attitude in principle, however, and another to establish it as a moral absolute. Nothing comes free, and the insistence on "original" research is bought at a price. No other discipline builds so slowly, because the members of no other discipline are so reluctant as historians to stand on the shoulders of others. All historians can recall criticisms of colleagues and students on the ground that their work was too derivative at one point or another, that it relied too heavily on secondary sources.

A LOOK AT HISTORIANS

Does our picture of the historical profession seem exaggerated? What do individual historians say about their conditions? To get some idea, we asked them.

In April and May, 1968, the History Panel mailed a short questionnaire to about 1,000 regular members of the history departments of 29 American colleges and

MARCH 1971

universities. Over the next six weeks, roughly 600 of those historians returned usable questionnaires, 40 sent word of their refusal or inability to answer, 100 replied in some other form, and 260 did not respond at all. In the selection of departments the Panel intentionally emphasized large, prestigious graduate departments, but also included six good institutions where there was little or no training of graduate students in history. The 29 departments together gave 64 percent of the Ph.D:s in history granted in the United States during 1960-66. The sample therefore provides a fairly good picture of what is going on in the institutions giving the bulk of American historians their advanced training, even if it seriously underrepresents the smaller and less prestigi­ous departments.

The topographic map of the profession that emerges shows a rough, uneven terrain. Four fundamental fea­tures are shown by the data: (1) a rather unequal dis­tribution of historical specialities among different sorts of departments and academic positions; (2) wide vari­ation in research interests, needs, and support according to special field, type of institution, and position within the institution; (3) a standard life cycle of research experience; (4) some change in these matters from one generation of historians to the next. Let us examine each of these briefly.

Within the sample, African and Asian historians are disproportionately concentrated in the institutions with highest prestige, West European historians in the smaller liberal arts colleges, intellectual historians in both, rather than in the departments of middling reputation. Historians of Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe fairly frequently had affiliations with research centers in their institutions, while historians of the United States or Western Europe rarely had such affiliations. Yet the latter groups show the highest proportions of full pro­fessors, while the newer fields of East European, Asian, African, and Latin American history include many of lesser rank. Likewise, diplomatic historians, economic historians, and the much younger group of historians of science are concentrated in the senior ranks, while political, social, and intellectual historians generally occupy the junior positions. Thus an economic historian of Asia (to take an extreme case) is likely to hold senior appointments in both a department of history and a re­search center in a high-prestige institution, and a his­torian of European science is likely to hold a similar position without the research affiliation, while the odds are better that an American political historian will hold high rank, without research appointment, in a less dis­tinguished institution, and that a Latin American social historian will hold a similar appointment at a lower rank. Since rank, quality of institution, and research

3

affiliation all affect the historian's ability to get his work done, the problems faced by specialists in the various fields differ considerably.

There are, for example, marked variations in research funds available to historians in different fields, as shown by the data on funds received from outside the univer­sity between 1964 and 1967, reported by historians in the 29 departments surveyed. Except for the history of science (which is the best-supported field in almost every respect), the specialties receiving heavier outside sup­port are generally those connected with interdisciplinary research centers. Among geographical specialists, his­torians of Latin America, Africa, and Asia do best. That is partly because such specialists are more likely to undertake expensive forms of research in the first place; it is also because more money is available for research on "exotic" areas or in interdisciplinary fields like eco­nomic history. Over and above these differences by field, our data show the decided advantage (not only in outside grants, but also in university support, teaching load, and time released for research) of the historian in a high­prestige institution or with a research appointment.

On the whole, with the important exception of his­torians of science, the kinds of historians who are best supported also show the closest ties to the behavioral and social sciences. About a tenth of the historians in the sample have undergraduate degrees in behavioral and social science fields other than history; around 7 percent have Ph.D.'s in those fields; and roughly a third claim "substantial training" in at least one of them. About three quarters of the historians queried said that at least one social science field was "particularly im­portant" to their own fields of interest, about two thirds expressed interest in a social science summer training institute, and just over half would choose a social science field for a full year's additional training. Distinguishing between fields, we find that we can divide our historians into three categories: uninterested, involved, and frus­trated. Historians of science and intellectual historians, especially those dealing with Europe and North America, typify those with little social science training, little c)lrrent contact with social science fields, and little de­sire to change in this regard. Economic historians of the United States, Latin America, or Asia provide a good example of the involved: likely to have substantial formal training in economics, staying in contact with economics and economists, and interested in extending their knowledge of social science. The frustrated are those with little previous social science training who have come to think that it is vital to their own work: social historians of the Americas tend to fall into this category. While in this case everything depends on the definitions, it would not be outrageous to label a fifth

4

of the historians answering our questionnaire uninter­ested, another third involved, and nearly half of them frustrated.

A fairly standard life cycle of research also appears in the findings. Within the sample the men just getting started tend to have heavy teaching loads, course assign­ments alien to their research interests, and poor support for their research. Those who are farther along begin to acquire funds, time off, and greater control over their teaching assignments, but also begin to feel the pinch of administrative responsibilities and outside commit­ments to writing and public service. The most senior historians are less likely to be involved in large and expensive research, although they continue to bear the burden of administrative and outside commitments. The more distinguished the institution and the closer the affiliation with a research institute, the earlier the historian achieves the perquisites of seniority.

Finally, some features of the historical landscape are changing with time. Judging by age, year of acquiring the Ph.D., or academic rank, we find senior historians concentrated in the traditional fields of North American and West European history (especially diplomatic, intel­lectual, and political history), and junior men in the newer specialties of East European, African, Asian, and Latin American history. These latter fields include very few scholars who earned Ph.D.'s before 1945. In recent years Eastern Europe appears to have lost favor, but all the others have more than their share of Ph.D.'s earned since 1962. So the very fields that involve their prac­titioners most heavily in the behavioral and social sci­ences are the ones that are growing and are currently staffed with junior men.

The younger men have a different outlook on their profession. In answer to our (leading) questions, "Do you think of yourself as a social scientist, humanist, or some­thing of both? Why?" a senior historian at a Midwestern university gave this thoughtful answer, characteristic of the older generation: "Principally as a humanist because I believe history is principally made of the ideas and actions of men, oftentimes unpredictable, and cannot be measured in statistical or 'scientific' terms."

One of his more irritable West Coast colleagues added, in capitals: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOCIAL 'SCI­ENCE,' ONLY MEN WHO BELIEVE THERE IS ONE."

On the other hand, an Asian specialist from the Mid­west said: "I consider myself a social scientist. I was trained as one and view my work as a historian as de­veloping and testing social science theory and method with historical data."

A young historian of Latin America replied flatly: "As a social scientist," but then added this comment on historical method that few humanistic historians would

VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1

disagree with: "I do not think that the method is dif­ferent, but the application of the method by historians certainly differs from that of, for example, sociologists or anthropologists. I think that the historian is generally more penetrating in his search for evidence, and is more rigorous in his application of the method."

The correlation of outlook with age and (more par­ticularly) specialty is strong, if not perfect.

As new fields of inquiry flourish within history, the division of opinion is changing, and the genteel poverty of historical researchers may change as well. An increas­ing number of historians are working in fields that bring them into interdisciplinary research centers and other forms of contact with more favored disciplines. Since they are better financed and equipped than their fel­lows, they inevitably produce a kind of demonstration effect among them.

SOME CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Historians-at least many historians-have not yet learned to live with these uncomfortable intruders on a world of art, intuition, and verbal skill. Hence our concern to stress the fact that we speak here for just one branch of the historical profession and that the changes we recommend are complementary to, rather than competitive with, other branches of historical scholarship. Social scientific research will make history richer, more exciting, more valuable, more relevant (that much overused wordl) to contemporary concerns and problems. But it is not alone in possessing these merits, and much of what it has to contribute is de­pendent on its incorporation within the discipline of history. The flow of knowledge and insight here runs two ways. History has always been a borrower from other disciplines, and in that sense social scientific his­tory is just another example of a time-honored process; but history has always been a lender, and all the social sciences would be immeasurably poorer without knowl­edge of the historical record. The social sciences are not a ~elf-contained system, one of whose boundaries lies in some fringe area of the historical sciences. Rather the study of man is a continuum, and social scientific history is a bridge between the social sciences and the human­ities. What we are proposing, to both audiences, is a bigger and better bridge.

The following recommendations sum up those offered throughout the report:

1. That departments of history diversify and enrich the present program of instruction: by building more courses around analytical themes (war, popu­lation, urbanization, etc.); by providing training in

MARCH 1971

the techniques and concepts of social science (in­cluding quantitative methods and computer analy­sis); and by adding to the instructional staff, on a part-time and full-time basis, specialists in these techniques and concepts. Training in these areas should be required of those students intending to specialize in social scientific history; but all history concentrators and graduate students should be re­quired to do a substantial portion of their work in some other discipline or disciplines.

2. That universities and colleges, with the support of public and private funding agencies, increase the support available for graduate study in history to a level commensurate with that found in the other social sciences. In particular, support is needed for the extra time required for training in related dis­ciplines and quantitative techniques; for the ap­plication of these methods in research (equipment, computer time, photographic work); and for a more flexible arrangement of field research.

3. That departments of history organize a substantial part of graduate education, for those students who desire it, around the continuing workshop-seminar. Such a seminar would be an analogue to the teach­ing laboratory of the natural sciences. It would have its own premises, its own specialized library and store of research material, its own research equip­ment, and it would unite faculty, staff, and students in a changing variety of individual and team re­search projects built around a common interest, more or less broadly defined. The members of such a seminar could also serve as the staff for under­graduate courses in its area of interest, thereby gaining experience in teaching as well as research.

4. That universities and colleges, with the support of public and private funding agencies, make it easier for historians to continue learning and research after the doctorate. Specifically, we recommend a loosening of leave arrangements to allow for both shorter and longer leaves than those currently per­mitted; the establishment of the postdoctoral re­search appointment as a normal option for first step on the academic ladder (as it already is in other disciplines); a program of retraining grants in com­bination with the establishment of interuniversity training institutes in fields important to historical research (statistics, computer programming, psycho­analysis); and increased support for such research centers as the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and the creation of new ones, both in this country and abroad.

5. That universities and colleges, with the assistance of public and private funding agencies, promote

5

those forms of cooperation that will enrich their programs of instruction and facilitate research: specifically, interuniversity research consortia, con­ferences, discussion groups, collaborative teaching, joint degrees, division of labor in the acquisition of equipment and materials. All these forms of cooperation are already established in various places on both an ad hoc and standing basis; but there is still a great deal that can be done, particu­larly on an international level.

6. That public and private funding agencies promote cooperation between American and foreign his­torical scholarship by linking counterpart grants for foreign scholars to American travel stipends; and that American scholars working abroad simi­larly promote cooperation where possible and ap­propriate by affiliating themselves with foreign academic institutions, by involving native scholars in their research, and by communicating their techniques and findings to the scholars and students of the host country.

7. That the federal government commit itself to the maintenance and growth of our major libraries and archives as a precious national resource; and that it develop additional regional libraries so that col-

leges and universities throughout the country will be within convenient reach of a major repository. Further, the federal government should finance the preparation of a machine-readable union catalogue of all library holdings in the United States, includ­ing eventually articles in periodicals and collective works--entries to be retrievable by subject as well as by author and title.

8. That libraries, archives, and museums widen the range of their collections to include those every­day records and artifacts that are now disposed of and destroyed but that will one day be the staple source material of social scientific history; that historians join with librarians and curators in de­veloping a program for the systematic collection, storage, and retrieval of such material; and that pu blic and private funding agencies finance both the planning and implementation of this expanded curatorial function.

This program of reform would obviously open paths to social scientific work in history which simply do not exist within the traditional confines of historical teach­ing and research. More important, it would enrich the study of every variety of history.

ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMPARATIVE POLITICS, 1954-70

THE Committee on Comparative Politics was honored to have a session of the 1970 meeting of the American Political Science Association devoted to a review of the committee's contributions to the discipline.1 The oc­casion called for the compilation of a large body of data, summaries of which are presented at the end of this report, and was fortunately preceded by publication of a thoughtful review of the intellectual history of the committee by Gabriel A. Almond, its first chairman.2

Although the committee's intellectual concerns dur­ing its seventeen years have been far-ranging, certain

1 The title of the round-table session, held on September 11, 1970, was "Comparative Political Studies: Did the SSRC-Sponsored Revolu­tion Devour Its Own Children?" The participants were Samuel Barnes. University of Michigan; Bernard E. Brown. Brooklyn College, City University of New York; Samuel P. Huntington, Harvard University (a member of the committee); Lucian 'V. Pye, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chairman of the committee); and Dankwart A. Rustow, Columbia University. In addition to Messrs. Pye and Huntington, the current members of the committee are Gabriel A. Almond. Leonard Binder, Philip E. Converse, Joseph LaPalombara, Sidney Verba. Robert E. Ward, Myron Weiner. and Aristide R . Zolberg; staff, Bryce Wood.

2 In section III of the "Introduction" in his Political Development: Essays in Heuristic Theory, Boston: Little. Brown and Company, 1970.

6

by Lucian W. Pye and Kay K. Ryland

themes have persisted and given focus to its activities. From the outset the committee undertook to bring to the center of comparative politics the study of the non­Western world and the problems of political develop­ment of the new states that emerged with the end of colonialism. The previous tradition in comparative politics had been one of almost exclusive concentration on the major powers of Europe. In seeking to expand the scope of the field to cover the entire contemporary world, the committee set the stage for development of a more universal concept of comparative politics that would include also all forms of historical and primitive systems of the pre-nation-state era.

The committee's first approach was to look beyond the formal institutions of government and to study the groups and interests that provide the dynamics of politics in different settings. As a means of exploring the value of comparative studies of groups, the committee planned and administered during 1956-58 a competitive program of grants to individuals for field research. The com­mittee also tested the utility of studying leadership as the central focus of a more universalized comparative

VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1

approach. The subject of Westernized leadership was the theme of the first summer seminar sponsored by the committee (1955).

It soon became apparent, however, that without a more solid theoretical basis comparative studies of groups and leadership would only produce a prolifera­tion of ad hoc research that would not be cumulative. At this point Gabriel A. Almond, then chairman of the committee, gave critical direction by indicating the need for macrosystemic comparative studies. The concept of political development requires the conceptualization of the total political system, and not just the comparative study of isolated institutions or groups. As a basis for the necessary macroanalysis, Almond demonstrated the utility of a form of structural-functional analysis. The theoretical orientation of The Politics of the Develop­ing Areas,3 which he edited with James S. Coleman, pro­foundly shaped the subsequent work of the committee and set the stage for its series of "Studies in Political Development." Six volumes in this series have been published by the Princeton University Press,' the seventh volume is in press, and three more are now in preparation.

With this commitment to macrosystemic analysis the committee went on to studies of political culture and modernization, which in tum led to the next major stage of the committee's activity-the investigation of historical processes in political development. In search­ing for more dynamic theories, the committee sought to identify the principal crises or problems that arise in political development and to trace the enduring con­sequences of the particular order or sequences in which the crises are experienced. The concept of crises em­phasizes the tensions and conflicts inherent in moderni­zation; the concept of sequences emphasizes the need for historical perspective in comparative dynamic analysis. The chief current concerns of the committee are the problems of comparative historical or dynamic analysis and the philosophical and methodological prob­lems inherent in such complex modes of comparative research.

After many years of concentrating on political devel­opment in the contemporary world, the committee in­creasingly felt the need for greater historical perspective.

8 Princeton University Press, 1960. • Lucian W. Pye, ed., Communications and Political Development,

1963; Joseph LaPalombara, ed., Bureaucracy and Political Develop. ment, 1963; Robert E. Ward and Dankwart A. Rustow, eds., Political Modernization in Japan and Turkey, 1964; James S. Coleman, ed., Education and Political Development, 1965; Lucian W. Pye and Sidney Verba, eds., Political Culture and Political Development, 1965: Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner, eds., Political Parties and Political Development, 1966. In press is Crises and Sequences in Political Devel· opments, by Leonard Binder, James S. Coleman, Joseph LaPalombara, Lucian W. Pye, Sidney Verba, and Myron Weiner.

MAR.CH 1971

This need has led to a "return to Europe" in the sense of asking questions about early political development in the West in the light of current experiences in the new states. This development has raised some fundamental questions about both historical and social science methodology. Is it possible to develop a systematic com­parative history? Is it possible to classify historical ex­periences and thus establish typologies of historical patterns? How does one distinguish the similarities, differences, and turning points necessary for classifying and contrasting historical periods?

At present the committee is sponsoring the work of a group of scholars, under the leadership of Raymond Grew, University of Michigan, who are reviewing the separate histories of European states in terms of the patterns and sequences of crises that were experienced in their national development. This project emerged directly out of the committee's study of the theory of crises and sequences in political development, which is soon to appear as the seventh volume of "Studies in Political Development," and it is expected to result in publication of another volume in the series, under the editorship of Mr. Grew. The collaborating historians and the countries being studied are: Belgium, Aristide R. Zolberg, University of Chicago; Czechoslovakia and Poland, Roman Szporluk, University of Michigan; France, David D. Bien, University of Michigan; Ger­many, John R. Gillis, Princeton University; United Kingdom, Keith Thomas, University of Oxford; Italy, Mr. Grew; the Netherlands, J. W. Smit, Columbia Uni­versity; Russia, Walter Pintner, Cornell University; Scandinavia, Folke Dovring, University of Illinois; Spain, Stanley G. Payne, University of Wisconsin; United States, J. Rogers Hollingsworth, University of Wisconsin.

A second activity of the committee in the area of com­parative historical analysis involved a workshop on State and Nation Building in Western Europe, which was held from June 15 to August 7, 1970, at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Under the direction of Charles Tilly, University of Michigan, and Gabriel A. Almond, a group of European and American historians and political scientists identified certain key problems and processes as having been criti­cal in the evolution of the European form of state and nation. These problems include the development of systems of taxation, the relationships between food sup­plies and public order, the recruitment and training of technical and managerial personnel in both the civil and military fields, and the evolution of systems for maintaining public order. It should be noted that the focus of this study is not on such issues as popular participation and nationalism, but rather on the more

7

extractive and repressive activities of states. By singling out the organization of armed forces, taxation, policing, control of food supplies, and the development of tech­nical personnel, the workshop stressed activities that are difficult, costly, and often unwanted by large parts of the population, but nonetheless essential to the creation of strong states. Analysis of these subjects is likely to in­dicate something important about the conditions under which strong or weak, centralized or decentralized, stable or unstable, states come into being.

The result of this comparative historical analysis of state and nation building is also expected to be another volume in the committee's series. Chapters of the volume are being prepared by the directors of the workshop and by Gabriel Ardant, University of Paris; David H. Bayley, University of Denver; Rudolf Braun, Wolfram Fischer, and Peter Lundgreen, Free University of Berlin; S. E. Finer, University of Manchester; and Stein Rok­kan, University of Bergen.

In the second area of current concern to the com­mittee, a workshop on philosophy and methodology of comparative social science research was held in Cam­bridge, Mass. on August 3-28, 1970, under the leader­ship of Leonard Binder, Philip E. Converse, and Sidney Verba. The other participants were Brian J. L. Berry, and Richard E. Flathman, University of Chicago; May Brodbeck, University of Minnesota; Donald T. Camp­bell, Northwestern University; Ralf Dahrendorf, Kon­stanz University; Alexander Gerschenkron, Harvard University; Richard E. Hildreth, and Raoul Naroll, State University of New York at Buffalo; Joseph La­Palombara; Alasdair MacIntyre, University of Essex; Adam Przeworski, Washington University; and Law­rence Shiner, Cornell College. Papers drafted for dis­cussion examined such matters as the degree to which contemporary social sciences may represent a distinct ideological orientation; the relevance for comparative political analysis of such developments in philosophy as phenomenology and ordinary language; and applied methodology, with respect to which the issues ranged from questions about the units of comparison to prob­lems of st~tistical inference. It is planned that papers inspired by the workshop will be brought together in another book in the committee's series.

A resume of the data collected on the functioning of the committee since its appointment in January 1954 shows that its programs have been conducted with funds amounting to a total of about $774,475, beginning with a two-year grant to the Council from the Carnegie Cor­poration of New York to enable the new committee to define the special characteristics, techniques, and values of application of comparative methods to the study of politics, and to plan for its extension and im-

8

provement. Four grants in support of the committee's work have been made to the Council by the Ford Foundation. Additional contributions have come from funds made available to the Council for other pur­poses, notably by the Rockefeller Foundation for inter­university summer research seminars. Of the total re­ceived about $200,000 has been expended for research by individuals; $406,000 for conferences, workshops, seminars, and publications; $100,000 for administrative expenses including costs of 46 committee meetings; and the balance remains to be expended during the current year.

Four fifths of the amount spent for research by in­dividuals was for field studies by 24 recipients of grants awarded under the committee's competitive program, and one fifth for research by 6 American and 4 foreign scholars on projects related to the committee's interests. It is noteworthy that approximately half the recipients of competitive awards were under 35 years of age; they represented 6 disciplines; and they worked in 21 countries (some in more than one)-ll in Western Europe, 7 in Asia, 2 each in Latin America, the Middle East, and the Caribbean area.

The conferences and other sessions directly planned and carried out by the committee so far have numbered 23; it has cosponsored 6 others. It has conducted 5 major workshops during summer months, the first in 1955 as noted above, under the Council's interuniver­sity summer research seminar program; one on moderni­zation of political culture, in 1962; another on crises and sequences of development, in 1963; and two held in 1970 as just described.

In addition to the conferences that have resulted in, or will result in, volumes in the series of "Studies in Political Development," conferences have been held on such topics as the role of interest groups in development, the uses of survey research methods in comparative analysis, and the lessons for democratic development that came out of the military occupation of Germany and Japan. The meetings that were cosponsored by the committee discussed such subjects as the interdepend­ence of national and political systems, the pattern of American political party development, the politics of smaller European democracies, the theories and history of fascism, problems of administrative reform in the developing areas, and trends in comparative research.

Some characteristics of the 245 persons that have par­ticipated in the committee's activities (in addition to its members, staff, and officers of foundations) may be of interest. The 46 scholars from foreign countries are nearly a fifth of the total. They came from 37 different institutions in 18 countries: 10 from the United King­dom (from 9 institutions); 6 from Germany; 4 each

VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1

from Italy, Japan, and Turkey; 3 each from France and Nigeria; 2 from India; and 1 each from 10 other countries.

The 199 United States participants have been affili· ated with the faculties of 67 different institutions. The largest numbers have come from: Harvard, 18; Prince· ton, 16; Columbia, 15; Yale, 15; Chicago, 14; Michigan, 13; California, Berkeley, and Los Angeles, 11 each. From 2 to 7 participants have come from each of 23 institu· tions, and a single participant from each of 36 others.

Not only have the participants been drawn from nu· merous countries and institutions, but they are more widely distributed among disciplines than one might ex­pect. Slightly more than half (131) are political scientists. There are 37 historians, 25 sociologists, 15 economists, 9 anthropologists, 6 psychologists, 5 specialists from the field of education, 5 from journalism, and 12 from 6 other disciplines.

In addition to the formal participants in the commit­tee's activities, a substantial number of graduate students have been associated with its various projects. Some have worked as research assistants to committee members and other participating scholars; some have prepared bibli· ographies and assisted in editing volumes in the commit­tee's series; a few attended seminars or workshops; and several acted as rapporteurs of conferences.

The most important criterion in evaluation of any re­search activity presumably is the quality of the published products; their number is also significant. The commit­tee has helped in the production of 296 written reports, including books and articles in journals, unpublished re­search memoranda, and other documents. Outside its series of "Studies in Political Development" and the vol· ume edited by Almond and Coleman cited above, it di­rectly sponsored the production of Studying Politics Abroad, by Robert E. Ward and others.5 The committee financially assisted the preparation of 4 other volumes, 3

5 Little, Brown and Company, 1964.

of which resulted from conferences it had cosponsored.s

The numerous reports published in journals or as chap­ters of books include papers commissioned by the com· mittee or prepared with its assistance or for its confer· ences, as well as reports on the proceedings of conferences and seminars. The recipients of grants from the commit­tee under its competitive program also have published a variety of materials based on their studies.7 Complete in­formation on both the published and unpublished ma­terials that have been produced in connection with the committee's activities is contained in a comprehensive report on the work of the committee, which will soon be available to interested persons and organizations upon request to the office of the Council.

In bringing together this total record it became appar­ent that the committee's work has been remarkably co­herent over the seventeen years, but that it has also sup­ported a rich diversity of research.

6 Ralph Braibanti, ed., Political and Administrative Development, Durham: Duke University Press, 1969; William N. Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham, eds., The American Party Systems, New York: Oxford University Press, 1967; S. N. Eisenstadt, The Political S'),stems of Empires, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963; and S. J. Woolf, ed., The Nature of Fascism, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1968.

7 These works have included some of the most innovative studies in political science in recent years, for example: Edward C. Banfield, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, Glencoe: Free Press, 1958; Samuel H. Beer, British Politics in the Collectivist Age, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965; Leonard Binder, Iran: Political Development in a Chang­ing Society, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962; Henry W. Ehrmann, Organized Business in France, Princeton: Princeton Uni­verSity Press, 1957; Federico G. Gil, The Political System of Chile, Boston: Houghton MilHin Company, 1966; Daniel Katz and Henry Valen, Political Parties in Norway, Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1964; Norman Kogan, The Government of Italy, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1962; Joseph LaPalombara, Interest Groups in Italian Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964; Seymour M. Lipset, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1960; Fred W. Riggs, Thailand: The Moderni­zation of a Bureaucratic Policy, Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1966; Myron Weiner, The Politics of Scarcity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

PERSONNEL GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Elizabeth Col­son (chairman), L. Gray Cowan, Philip D. Curtin, Walter W. Deshler, William O. Jones, Roy Sieber, and Robert F. Thompson-at its meeting on February 5-6 awarded 8 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara:

John Cownie, Assistant Professor of Economics, Federal City College, for research in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, and Congo on the differential effects of selected tropical African commodity exports on do-

MARCH 1971

mestic income and employment (joint with Scott R. Pearson)

Jean Herskovits, Assistant Professor of History, City Col­lege, City University of New York, for research in Lon­don and Nigeria on the political and economic history of the Jukun Kingdom of Central Nigeria

Clyde R. Ingle, Assistant Professor of Political Science, State University of New York, College of Arts and Sci­ence at Geneseo, for comparative research in Tanzania and Kenya on the politics of rural development

G. Wesley Johnson, Jr., Assistant Professor of African His­tory, Stanford Umversity, for research in Senegal, Ivory Coast, and Paris on the history of the French-speaking black African intelligentsia, 1900-1960

9

Robert A. Kauffman, Assistant Professor of Music, Uni­versity of Washington, for research in Rhodesia, Ni­geria, Ghana, and Jamaica, on process rather than product as a means of understanding the cultural tradi­tions retained in Shona urban music

V. A. Olorunsola, Associate Professor of Political Science, Iowa State University, for research in Sierra Leone and Nigeria or Ghana on political reconstruction

Scott R. Pearson, Assistant Professor of Economics, Stan­ford University, for research in the United States on the differential effects of selected tropical African com­modity exports on domestic income and employment ~oint with John Cownie)

Elliott P. Skinner, Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University, for research on the status and role of "strangers" in African societies throughout history

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY AND REPUBLICAN CHINA

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Albert Feuerwerker (chairman), Thomas P. Bernstein, Chalmers Johnson, Dwight H. Perkins, James R. Townsend, Ezra F. Vogel, C. Martin Wilbur acting in place of John M. H. Lindbeck (deceased), and Arthur P. Wolf-at its meeting on January 22 awarded 20 grants for research:

Robert E. Bedeski, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Ohio State University, for research on cyclical aspects of political change in Communist China, 1949-69

Philip R. Bilancia, Associate Professor of Political Science, New School for Social Research, for completion of preparation of a dictionary of law in Communist China (supplementary to grants made in earlier years)

Peter Buck, Ph.D. candidate in history of science, Harvard University, for postdoctoral research on the role of sci­ence and the social relations of the scientific community in Communist China

Kuang-Tih Fann, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Florida State University, for research in the United States and China on the role of ideology in Communist China

Donald G. Gillin, Professor of History, Vassar College, for research in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Japan on the Chinese civil war of 1945-50

Jerome B. Grieder, Associate Professor of Asian History, Brown University, for research in Japan on the idea of "politics" in modem China, c. 1900-1949, and the influ­ence of Confucian political concepts on the idea

Chun-tu Hsueh, Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, for research in Taipei and Hong Kong on Kung Ch'u and the Red Army

Joe C. Huang, Professor of Political Science, Tougaloo College, for research on heroes and villians in Chinese Communist fiction and their reflection of interpersonal relations in Communist China

Paul Hyer, Professor of History, Brigham Young Univer­sity, for research in Taiwan and Japan on political, so­cial, and intellectual developments in Inner Mongolia in the twentieth century, particularly the rise of nation­alism and movements for self-determination

Lawrence J . Lau, Assistant Professor of Economics, Stan­ford University, for research in Tokyo, Taipei, Hong Kong, and the United States on comparative provincial economic development in Mainland China after 1949

10

Feng-hwa Mah, Associate Professor of Economics, Univer­sity of Washington, for research on Chinese agricultural development, 1950-70

Michel Oksenberg, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Columbia University, for research in Taiwan on poli­tics in a Chinese bureaucracy

Richard M. Pfeffer, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Johns Hopkins University, for research in Hong Kong on the role of the masses in China's continuing revolution

James E. Sheridan, Professor of History, Northwestern University, for research on problems of the Chinese re­publican period, particularly the influence of warlords

Donald S. Sutton, Lecturer in History, Carnegie-Mellon University, for research in Hong Kong and Taiwan on the Yunnan army, 1909-25, with special reference to the relations of its officer corps and the Kuomintang (sup­plementary to an award under the program of the Com­mittee on Exchanges with Asian Institutions)

George E. Taylor, Professor of Asian Studies, University of Washington, for research on the international prob­lem of China in the 1970's

Ranbir Vohra, Lecturer on History, Harvard University, for completion of research on the life and early and middle literary works of Lao She, as an approach to the intellectual and social history of China m the 1920's and 1930's

Yi Chu Wang, Professor of History, Queens College, City University of New York, for research in Taiwan and Tokyo on the implementation and consequences of the Sino-Japanese Treaties of 1915

Allen S. Whiting, Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan, for a comparative study of the use of force in Chinese foreign policy, 1949-69

Tien-wei Wu, Associate Professor of Asian History, Ap­palachian State University, for research in Taiwan on the Kiangsi Soviet period: a history of the Chinese Com­munist movement, 1928-35

GRANTS FOR EAST ASIAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on East Asian Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Marius B. Jansen (chairman), James I. Crump, Jr., Felix Moos, James William Morley, and Edwin G. Pulleyblank-at its meeting on February 6 awarded grants to 15 scholars under its pro­gram of grants for research in the humanities and social sci­ences relating to Japan, pre-1911 China (including Taiwan), and Korea:

Vincent S. R. Brandt, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Swarthmore College, for a comparative study of rur3.1-urban relationships and migration in Japan and Korea

Kwang-chih Chang, Professor of Anthro:pology, Yale Uni­versity, for a comprehensive study of mscribed bronzes in Shang and Chou China

John W. Dardess, Assistant Professor of East Asian Studies and History, University of Kansas, for research on the founding of the Ming Dynasty

Leon Hollerman, Professor of Economics, Claremont Men's College and Claremont Graduate School, for re­search on free enterprise and competitive power in the Japanese economy

Harold L. Kahn, Associate Professor of History, Stanford University, for research on marginal and poor people in late traditional China

VOLUME 25, NUl'olBER 1

Donald L. Keene, Professor of Japanese, Columbia Uni­versity, for research on the history of Japanese literature

Stephen S. Large, Assistant Professor of History, Univer­sity of Iowa, for research on the Japan General Feder­ation of Labor, 1919-40

James]. Y. Liu, Professor of Chinese, Stanford University, for research on major concepts and concerns of tradi­tional Chinese literary criticism (c. 200-1900)

Lucien Miller, Assistant Professor of Chinese and Com­parative Literature, University of Massachusetts, for re­search on imitation and originality in traditional Chi­nese fiction

Richard J. Pearson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, for research on prehistoric adap­tive systems in the Ryukyu Islands

Rulan Chao Pian, Lecturer on Chinese, Harvard Univer­sity, for completion of research on musical elements in the Peking Opera

William E. Steslicke, Visiting Lecturer in Political Science, Bryn Mawr College, for research on social welfare poli­tics in contemporary Japan

David A. Titus, Assistant Professor of Government, Wes­leyan University, for research on political leadership and political change in prewar Japan

James W. White, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina, for research on political implications of cityward migration in Japan

Leon M. Zolbrod, Associate Professor of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, for research on Tales of Ugetsu and on the haiku poet, Yosa Buson

NEW PUBLICATIONS The Behavioral and Social Sciences: Outlook and Needs.

Report by the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee under the auspices of the Committee on Sci­ence and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, and the Committee on Problems and Policy, Social Sci­ence Research Council. Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice­Hall, Inc., December 1969. 335 pages. $7.95.

Anthropology, edited by Allan H. Smith and John L. Fischer. Report of the Anthropology Panel of the Be­havioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Engle­wood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1970. 158 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

Economics, edited by Nancy D. Ruggles. Report of the Economics Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sci­ences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1970. 190 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $2.45.

Geogmphy, edited by Edward]. Taaffe. Report of the Geography Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sci­ences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall, Inc., May 1970.154 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $2.45.

HistOl"'Y as Social Science, edited by David S. Landes and Charles Tilly. Report of the History Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall, Inc., March 1971. 160 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

Mathematical Sciences and Soctal Sciences, edited by William H. Kruskal. Report of the Mathematical Sci­ences Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Sur­vey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1970. 92 pages. Cloth only, $4.95.

Political Science, edited by Heinz Eulau and James G. Ma.rch. Report of the Political Science Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Novem­ber 1969. 160 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

Psychiatry as a Behavioral Science, edited by David A. Hamburg. Report of the Psychiatry Panel of the Be­havioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.].: Prentice-Hall, Inc., July 1970. 127 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

Psychology, edited by Kenneth E. Clark and George A. Miller, Report of the Psychology Panel of the Be­havioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., March 1970. 157 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

MARCH 1971

Sociology, edited by Neil J. Smelser and James A. Davis. Report of the Sociology Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1969. 187 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

China's Fertilizer Economy, by Jung-Chao Liu. Sponsored by the former Committee on the Economy of China. Chi­cago: Aldine Publishing Company, November 1970. 188 pages. $6.00.

Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing and Guidance, ed­ited by Wayne H. Holtzman. Product of a conference co­sponsored by the Committee on Learning and the Educa­tional Process and the College Entrance Examination Board Commission on Tests, October 21-22, 1968. New York: Harper & Row, December 1970. 415 pages. $10.00.

Contemporary Chinese Law: Research Problems and Pe,.­spectives, edited by Jerome Alan Cohen, Harvard Studies in East Asian Law, 4. Product of the Conference on Chi­nese Communist Law: Tools for Research, held by the Subcommittee on Chinese Law, Joint Committee on Con­temporary China, May 27-30, 1967. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, August 1970. 392 pages. $10.00.

Experiments in Primary Education: Aspects of Project Follow-Through, by Eleanor E. Maccoby and Miriam Zellner. Expansion of a paper prepared for a conference held by the Subcommittee on Compensatory Education, Committee on Learning and the Educational Process, May 15-17, 1969. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., October 1970. 144 pages. $2.95.

Japan and Korea: An Annotated Bibliography of Doctoral Dissertations in Western Languages, 1877-1969, compiled and edited by Frank]. Shulman. Prepared with the as­sistance of the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies and the Joint Committee on Korean Studies. Chicago: Ameri­can Library Association, August 1970. 359 pages. $6.95.

Modern Portuguese, by Fred P. Ellison, Francisco Gomes de Matos, and others. Prepared with the aid of the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, January 1971. 614 pages. $12.95.

The Study of Japan in the Behavioral Sciences, edited by Edward Norbeck and Susan Parman. Papers prepared for a conference held by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, April 11-12, 1969. Rice University Studies, Vol. 56, No.4, Fall 1970. 314 pages. $3.25.

II

SUMMER TRAINING INSTITUTES TO BE HELD IN 1971 BY THE COMM ITTEE ON BIOLOGICAL BASES OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

.NEUROBIOLOGY FOR SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE,

JULY 8 - SEPTEMBER 3, 1971

The purpose of this institute, supported by a grant to the Council from the National Institute of Mental Health, is to provide basic knowledge and a conceptual framework for study of the organization and functioning of the brain, for social scientists whose research interests call for measure­ment, manipulation, or control of biological variables.

Instruction will be offered at the advanced predoctoral and postdoctoral levels. Prior training in biological sciences is not required. Applicants must be citizens or permanent residents of the United States, or must have filed a declara­tion of intent to become a citizen. No more than 20 appli­cants will be accepted. All participants are expected to at­tend the entire eight-week program.

Stipends will be available in the amount of $720 for pre­doctoral trainees and $880 for postdoctoral. Travel expenses will be reimbursed up to an equivalent of round-trip economy jet airline fare.

The director of the institute will be Richard F. Thomp­son, Professor of Psychobiology, University of California, Irvine. Other members of the teaching staff will be drawn from the Department of Psychobiology at the University, an interdisciplinary group composed of neuroanatomists, neurochemists, neurophysiologists, and psychologists. The department has developed an outstanding interdisciplinary graduate program in Neurobiology and Behavior; the in­stitute represents a distillation of that program.

The summer course will consist of lectures, seminars, and laboratory experiments. Special emphasis will be placed on opportunities for individual discussions with staff members and with other students. The curriculum will include basic cellular biology, neurochemistry, neuroanatomy, neurophysi­ology, and application of neurobiology to integrative prob­lems of motivation and emotion, sleep, arousal, attention, learning and memory, thought and language, among others. There will be guest lecturers for special topics.

Application forms may be obtained from Dr. Richard F. Thompson, Department of Psychobiology, University of California, Irvine, California 92664. Completed applications

must be in his hands by April 1, 1971. Announcement of awards will be made about April 15.

POPULATION GENETICS FOR SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO,

JUNE 21- JULY 30, 1971

The purpose of this institute, which is made possible by a grant to the Council from the National Science Foundation, is to provide a conceptual framework of basic and general genetics for social scientists concerned with those mecha­nisms that generate variability within populations and influ­ence the genetic characteristics of populations over succeed­ing generations.

Instruction will be offered at the advanced graduate and postdoctoral levels. Applicants, who must be citizens of the United States or have filed a declaration of intent to become a citizen, should have completed a minimum of one year of graduate instruction prior to the beginning of the institute. All participants must attend the entire program.

Stipends will be available in the amount of $510 for pre­doctoral trainees and $600 for postdoctoral. Travel expenses will be provided up to an equivalent of round-trip economy jet airline fare.

The director of the summer training institute will be Gerald E. McClearn, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colo­rado. Other members of the teaching staff will be drawn from the faculty of that and other universities.

Trainees will receive basic instruction in genetics and then intensive instruction in the principles of population and quantitative genetics. These principles will be related to hereditary influences on behavior and to issues in psy­chology, sociology, political science, and other social science disciplines. Instruction will be by lecture and laboratory, and the program will emphasize the opportunity for indi­vidual consultation of trainees with faculty.

Application forms may be obtained from Dr. G. E. McClearn, Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302. Completed applications must be in his hands by April 1, 1971. Announcement of awards will be made about April 15.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 2!l0 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

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

Directors, 1971: DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, EUZABETH COLSON, LEE J. CRONDACH, PHIUP D . CURTIN, RENEE C . Fox, DANIEL X. FREEDMAN,

WILUAM GORHAM, SAMUEL P. HAYS, MATTHEW HOLDEN, Ja., DELL HYMES, LAWRENCE R. KLEIN, GARDNER LINDZEY, LEON LIPSON, GEOFFREY

H. MOORE, JAMES N. MORGAN, JOHN W. PRATT, AUSTIN RAN!'IEY, ALBERT RED, HENRY W. RIECKEN, DAVID M. SCHNEIDER, HERBERT A. SIMON, NEIL

J. SMELSER, M . BREWSTER SMITH, EDWARD J. TAAFFE, KARL E. TAEUBER, JOHN M. THOMPSON, DAVID B. TRUMAN, ANDREW P. VAYDA, ROBERT E. ,.yARD, CHARLES V. WILLIE

Officers and Staff: HENRY 'V. RIECKEN, President; BRYCE WOOD, Executive Associate; ELEANOR C . IsBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., DONALD

S. SHOUP, DAVID JENNESS, Staff Associates; JOHN C . CAMI'BELL, Staff Assistant; STANLEY LEHMANN, MIRlA:I{ ZELLNER, Consultants; CATHERINE V. RON NAN, Financial Secretary

]2