SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 26 . NUMBER 1 . MARCH 1972 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

STUDYING THE IMPACTS OF PUBLIC POLICIES

SINCE 1965 the Council's Committee on Governmental and Legal Processes has encouraged political scientists to consider whether and how to add to their discipline's traditional emphasis on the processes of public policy­making increased attention to policy contents and the differences they make in the lives of people. This initi­ative was first manifested in the planning and sponsor­ship of two conferences, held in 1966 and 1967, and in the publication of a volume of papers from the two con­ferences in 1968.1

The papers and discussions at these conferences led the committee to the conclusion that one of the most significant, yet inadequately studied, areas is what we have come to call "policy impacts," that is, the differ­ences, intended and unintended, that are indepen­dently brought about in the life situations of "target" and "bystander" populations by particular public poli­cies or constellations of policies. To help advance schol­arly research in this area, the committee held a confer­ence on "The Impacts of Public Policies" in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., on December 3-5, 1971. As for the previous

• The author is Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a member of the board of directors of the Social Science Research Council. and chairman of its Committee on Govern­mental and Legal Processes. The other members of the committee are Richard F. Fenno, Jr., University of Rochester; Matthew Holden. Jr., University of Wisconsin, Madison; Anthony King, University of Essex; Warren E. Miller, University of Michigan; Walter F. Murphy, Princeton University; Kenneth Prcwitt, University of Chicago; and James W. Prothro, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; staff, Bryce Wood.

1 Austin Ranney, ed., Political Science and Public Policy, Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1968. (A condensed version of the introductory chapter of this volume appeared in Items, September 1968.)

by A ustin Ranney*'

conferences the committee invited papers on certain general conceptual and methodological problems, but this time empirical case studies comprised a higher pro­portion of the invited papers. Some of the principal themes treated by the authors of the papers and the participants' reactions are summarized in this brief re­port.2 The full proceedings are expected to be pub­lished in a volume edited by the present writer, in the spring of 1973.

CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSES

James S. Coleman of Johns Hopkins University in his paper, "Problems of Conceptualization and Meas­urement in Studying Policy Impacts," called attention to what he regards as a distinction of basic importance: that between disciplinary research and policy research. The object of the former, Coleman argued, is to ad­vance knowledge in the particular scholarly concerns of a discipline by arriving at empirically valid and theo­retically significant conclusions about the state of affairs. Such research begins with an intellectual problem posed by previous research or theory, and proceeds at a pace

~ In addition to the authors of the papers and all members of the committee except Richard F. Fenno, Jr., and Kenneth Prewitt, the participants in thc conference included Thomas R. Dye, Florida State University; Heinz Eulau, Stanford University; John G. Grumm, Wes­leyan University; Pendleton Herring, Foreign Area Fellowship Pro­gram; Harold D. Lasswell, John Jay College of Criminal Justice: Theodore R. Marmor, University of Minnesota; Jack W. Peltasoll. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Ira Sharkansky. Univer­sity of Wisconsin. Madison; Donald S. Shoup, Social Science Research Council. Jean :\1 . Swanson and Bryce Wood served as rapporteurs.

dictated only by the demands of scholarship. The in­tended audience is the discipline's teachers and re­searchers; and the self-corrective method employed is the well-known "adversary proceedings" of replicative studies and scholarly reviews.

Policy research is significantly different from discipli­nary research in the following respects: 8 Its object is to provide information immediately useful to policy makers in grappling with the problems they face. It begins out­side a discipline with a social problem defined by a de­cision maker. The pace of the research is forced by the policy maker's need to make a decision dictated by non­disciplinary imperatives. The intended audience is the decision maker, to whom it must be made intelligible and convincing if it is to be useful. And as yet there are no intra-agency "competing" research projects or other counterparts of disciplinary research's self-corrective methods.

The many differences between policy and discipli­nary research, Coleman concluded, do not make the for­mer any the less significant for the nation or for social scientists. The differences do mean, however, that social scientists must "recognize that policy research requires methodological development of its own, beginning at the most fundamental or conceptual level"-a task, he believes, worthy of social scientists' best efforts.

Brian Barry of the University of Essex contributed a paper on "Public Policy and Political Theory." The prime task of political theorists, he noted, is "to general­ize about the political conditions under which policies having impacts of certain kinds are liable to be put into effect [and] the organization and other pre-requisites for putting into effect policies of a certain kind." To this end, he suggested viewing government as a kind of cybernetic system, which "needs to have information about the state of its environment, criteria for deter­mining when it has to act on the environment, and a means of acting. (Monitoring the results of action can be thought of as the initiation of a further cycle.)" In Barry's view the criteria determine the kind of infor­mation sought and thus the means used, the results achieved, and the manner in which they are evaluated. The goal of extracting an economic surplus will elicit one kind of information, military conquest another kind, saving souls yet another kind, and so on. The remainder of his paper was devoted to showing the information-gathering and policy-action consequences of choosing the criteria of left liberalism over those of right liberalism.

8 Coleman's arguments on this point were buttressed with several illustrations from the preparation, contents, and reception of the so·called Coleman Report: James S. Coleman and others, Equality Of Educational Opportunity, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

2

CASE STUDIES

Howard A. Scarrow of the State University of New York at Stony Brook gave a paper on "The Impact of British Air Pollution Legislation," a case study of the consequences of Britain's 1956 Clean Air Act. He pointed out that the results of the Act are especially useful for impact studies because it authorized but did not require the nation's local authorities to demarcate "smokeless areas" where only approved smokeless fuels could be burned. Most but not all of the local authori­ties in the "black areas" (those with the higher levels of smoke emissions) used the permission to make rules, while most but not all of them in the "white areas" (those with the lower levels of smoke emissions) did not. Scarrow presented a variety of data showing that smoke emission levels dropped significantly more in the areas where local rules were imposed than in areas where they were not. He remarked, however, that sev­eral other forces were involved-notably the large num­ber of voluntary switchovers from bituminous coal to natural gas for heating. In an effort to isolate the in­dependent impact of the local authorities' actions from that of other factors, Scarrow reviewed data on the de­cline, by areas, in domestic coal consumption, consump­tion of solid smokeless fuels, and sales of gas space heaters. He concluded that between 40 and 60 percent of the total decline in smoke emissions could reasonably be attributed to the impact of the Clean Air Act, and the remainder to voluntary actions by citizens.

"Old Age, Inequality, and Political Conjunctures in Britain and Sweden," by H. Hugh Heclo of the Uni­versity of Essex, was a comparative analysis of the im­pact of old-age-pension programs on the economic status of the elderly. He found that in Great Britain since the early 1950's increases in pensions have matched or ex­ceeded increases in male workers' earnings, but the in­equalities of income among various strata of the elderly have not been significantly narrowed. In Sweden in the period 1951-66, on the other hand, the income of the elderly relative to other segments of the population actually declined. In both countries, he concluded, these divergent trends were unanticipated consequences of changes in the old-age-pension structures.

Paul L. Puryear of Florida State University, currently a Visiting Scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, pre­sented a paper on "The Measurement of Manpower Policy Impacts in the Black Community: Income Mo­bility, Occupational Status, and Political Support." His data came from a larger study, supported by the Com­mittee on Governmental and Legal Processes, of the implementation and impact of the Concentrated Em­ployment Program in a large southern city. From his

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1

examination of the files of 981 CEP enrollees, Puryear found that most of the 336 who completed their train­ing programs obtained better-paying jobs than they had held prior to their enrollment, although for the most part they took jobs requiring fewer skills and less train­ing than they had acquired, and their incomes con­tinued to lag well behind those of "Metro City's" work force as a whole. His attitudinal data from interviews with both dropouts and graduates showed that the lat­ter approved the CEP program to a substantially greater extent than did the dropouts, believed it did help en­rollees get better jobs, and generally had lower levels of alienation and higher levels of political efficacy. Whether or not the program can, on balance, be deemed a success, Puryear argued, depends on whether one looks only at initial job placements, as the CEP administrators did, or at advancement after initial em­ployment.

In "The Impact of Advertising Regulation in the United States," Alan Stone of Rutgers University ob­served that the Federal Trade Commission from its beginnings has had little discernible impact on the methods and content of American advertising. He reviewed several current explanations for this "non­impact": incompetent personnel, the Commission's use of the cumbersome case-by-case method, and others. Each explanation, he concluded, did not fully explicate the phenomenon, and he offered an alternative. The fundamental reason for the FTC's failure to regulate advertising, he argued, lies in the very limits placed on its mandate and its methods of operation by the statute that created it. It was not intended to regulate ad­vertising'S truthfulness to protect the consumer, and its failure to do so simply carries out the intentions of those who originally framed its charter.

Gary Orfield of Princeton University presented a paper on "The Impact of Civil Rights Laws," giving special attention to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 1968 fair housing law. For any such legislation to have maximum impact, Orfield contended, four conditions must be met: (1) adequate legislative authority, (2) enforcement ma­chinery keyed to results rather than procedural equity, (3) supporting judicial decisions, and (4) determination in the executive branch to employ the enforcement machinery. He found that all four conditions have been met best in the South in the areas of public accom­modations and voting rights, and met least in both South and North in the areas of housing, employment, and education. While there are a number of reasons for these variations in impact, he concluded, the degree of acceptance or resistance by the affected white popu­lations appears to be the most important determinant.

MARCH 1972

Finally, the paper by Samuel C. Patterson of the University of Iowa, "Political Representation and Pub­lic Policy," was the only one dealing with the impact of what he called a "regime policy," that is, a policy intended to shape the process by which all policies are made. The policy in question was the Supreme Court's effort to require that the U.S. House of Repre­sentatives and both houses of all state legislatures be apportioned in strict accordance with the one-man­one-vote principle. Patterson found very high degrees of compliance with the rule in reapportionments at both levels. However, the impact of this high com­pliance on other matters is much less clear. There is evidence that reapportionment has significantly altered the legislative voting power of various regions within many states, and has also affected the party compositions of many state legislatures. But there is no evidence that reapportionment has had any significant impact on substantive policy outputs at either the state or national level. In conclusion Patterson noted that, up to now at least, the Court's arithmetic equality formula has not touched on the permissibility of gerryman­dering, and he suggested that political scientists might usefully tum their attention to the difficult but crucial questions: How much gerrymandering exists, and what are the consequences for the quality of American legisla­tures and the nature of their outputs?

ISSUES AND AGREEMENTS

In discussions of the eight papers presented at the conference, the participants debated many issues and even agreed on a few. The two issues most discussed were not resolved: First, for purposes of scholarly research on impacts just what is a "public policy"? Some participants argued that a public policy is most usefully conceptualized as any official statement of goals and methods by a government agency or official, such as a legislative act, an executive order, an adminis­trative regulation, or a judicial decision. Others argued that any such statement may be merely a mask con­cealing the policy makers' true intentions, and the latter constitute the true policy. Still others contended that what public authorities actually do, not what they say, are (behaviorally speaking) their true policies. But all agreed that whatever concept of policy the student of policy impacts chooses is likely to control his selec­tion and evaluation of data and to shape his findings. At the very least, then, each investigator should be clear in his own mind and candid with his audience about which concept he is using, for what reasons, and with what consequences for his conclusions.

3

The second issue was a new version of the venerable dispute about the political scientist's proper role and concerns. Some participants took the position that mem­bers of the discipline should concentrate exclusively on studying political impacts, that is, the consequences of policies for the nature of political systems and processes themselves. That focus, they argued, fits the political scientist's training and the discipline's central concerns; and efforts to enlarge it will only produce inferior work in economics, psychology, sociology, and other disciplines whose members are better equipped for analyzing impacts on other aspects of society. Others found this argument not good enough. It was their view that if one wants and needs to know about the impacts of public policies on people's economic or social or religious lives, and if research in no other discipline is giving the needed information, then it is not only the right but the duty of political scientists to seek it.

In the opinion of nearly all the participants, how­ever, the most difficult of the many problems in study­ing policy impacts is that of isolating any particular policy's independent impacts from those of all the various economic, social, physical, and other forces affecting the course of events. What we seek to discover in every case is just what happens after a policy is promulgated that would not have happened in the absence of that policy--or, conversely, what did not happen that would have happened in the policy's ab­sence. It is always difficult and frequently impossible to isolate cause and effect relationships in any kind of social science research, and policy impact studies pose many particularly difficult, perhaps insoluble, method­ological problems.

Nevertheless, most of the partiCIpants believed that striving to solve these problems and to carry out more reliable impact studies should have a high priority in the future of political science and possibly in other social sciences as well. The papers and discussions at the conference left little doubt that the sheer dis­ciplinary challenge and intellectual excitement are reason enough for this priority. But beyond our im­mediate concerns lies the simple but fundamental consideration that, whether for voters or social activists or public officeholders, the first step in making a mean­ingful normative evaluation of a public policy is to answer the empirical question: What difference does it make? Whatever scholarly contribution political scientists and their colleagues in other disciplines can make to answering that question in a variety of policy contexts is surely worth any effort that can be made.

A conference on the related but broader topic, "The Comparative Analysis of Public Policy Performance," was held by the Committee on Comparative Politics at Princeton on January 25-27, 1972. At this conference Anthony King presented a paper, "On Studying the Im­pacts of Public Policies," stemming largely from the discussion at the St. Thomas conference. Also, Austin Ranney reviewed the research on policy impacts that has been supported by the Committee on Govern­mental and Legal Processes and communicated its de­sire to work with the Committee on Comparative Poli­tics and with European scholars in encouraging the development of research focused on comparing the for­mation, implementation, and impacts of public policies in contemporary advanced industrial societies. The problems and possibilities of these new initiatives are now being explored.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN CHINA'S DEVELOPMENT: REPORT ON A WORKSHOP HELD WITH THE AID

OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONTEMPORARY CHINA

SCIENCE policy is a relatively new field of research, in which questions that may provide a framework for relating the nature and direction of a nation's science and technology to its policy decisions have only begun

• The author is affiliated with the Science Policy Research Uqit, University of Sussex, cosponsor and host of the workshop. Other participants in the workshop from the Science Policy Research Unit were its Director, Christopher Freeman, C. H. Geoffrey Oldham (chairman of the workshop), Charles M. Cooper, Genevieve C. Dean, and Jon Sigurdson: from the Joint Committee on Contemporary China and its subcommittees, Robert F. Dernberger and Alexander Eckstein, both of the University of Michigan, Dwight H. Perkins and Ezra F.

4

by Susan B. Rifkin"

to be identified. Such questions as the following appear to be most relevant: What are the characteristics of the country's science and technology system as a whole? How does it change? How does educational training

Vogel, both of Harvard University, and John Creighton Campbell (staff). The other participants were Stevan Dediger, University of Lund: John Gittings, China Quarterly; Shigeru Ishikawa, Hitotsu­bashi University; Manfredo Macioti, UNESCO, Paris; Bruce J. Mcfar­lane, Australian National University; Kurt Mendelssohn, University of Oxford: Joseph Needham, University of Cambridge; A. Parthas­arathi, Special Assistant for Science and Technology to the Prime Minister of India; Phillippe Richer, Directorate-General for Scientific

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1

affect such change? How are choices of technology made, especially between imported and indigenous technologies? What is the role of organized research and development programs in this process? What is the role of technological progress in economic progress in general? What different technologies are in use in the modern and traditional sectors of the economy? What is the role of a nation's ideology in decision making concerning development? How do decisions on foreign policy influence decisions on science policy?

A workshop to examine these questions with refer­ence to the experiences of the People's Republic of China was held on January 10-14, 1972 at the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, with the cosponsorship of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council and the Canadian International Development Research Center. The workshop was dedicated to the memory of John M. H. Lindbeck, chairman of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China from 1964 until his death in January 1971. He had been especially interested in the development of science and technology in China and had stimulated inquiries into possibilities for expanding research on the subject. One result was a grant from the Ford Foundation to the Science Policy Research Unit for initiation of the collection of rele­vant research materials and preliminary studies on the role of science and technology in China's development. This program, under the direction of C. H. G. Oldham, led to a proposal for a workshop that would bring together members of three groups--specialists on China, specialists on science policy, and economists concerned with development-who share interests in China's science and technology policies. This proposal was developed in collaboration with the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, which in 1969-70 was explor­ing ways of fostering relationships between social and natural scientists that would increase knowledge of China on the part of persons who might be able to further communication with Chinese scientists.

The explicit objectives of the four-day meeting were presented in the opening remarks by Mr. Oldham, who served as chairman: to review the state of knowledge on Chinese science and technology; to examine the relevance of the Chinese experience for other under­developed countries; and to identify priorities for future research. There were also implicit objectives which

and Technological Research. Paris; Jorge A. Sabato, National Com­mission on Atomic Energy. Argentina; Ignacy Sachs. Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes; Jean-Jacques Salomon. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and Ruth Zagorin, International De­velopment Research Center, Ottawa.

MARCH 1972

were summarized by the chairman in the final session and which were reflected in the choice of participants of diverse nationalities, professional experience, and intellectual interests. These implicit objectives were: to inform specialists on science policy about what China is doing and encourage them to take the Chinese experience into account in their own studies; to place before China specialists a broader set of questions, dif­ferent ways of thinking, and different disciplinary approaches relevant to China; and to bring together an international group to help develop research on Chinese science and technological policy.

Papers on selected topics were prepared by the China specialists who had been invited to attend the workshop, and these were circulated to all partici­pants in advance. Sessions organized for discussion of these papers were chaired by members of the other two groups in attendance. Discussions were focused on two general areas: China's scientific organization and science policy and its relationship to society, and China's technological policies. Papers in the first cate­gory dealt with science institutions in China and the effects of the Cultural Revolution on these institutions; science, technology, and social organization in con­temporary China; Marxist theory and China's science policy; and health strategies and development planning in China. In the second category papers were prepared on the transfer of technology to China; China's choice of techniques; rural industrialization; and the choice of technology in Chinese agriculture.

While it is impossible here to review the discussions in any detail, major questions raised about the Chinese experience by the non-China specialists, whose ex­perience with science policy and economic development was in other less-developed countries, may be identified. The economists were particularly interested in labor­intensive strategies and their relationship to choice of technologies in industrial and agricultural develop­ment. They were also interested in the influence of technological choice on the growth of research and development programs with technology as a major variable of developmental planning, the interrelation­ship among technology, technique and institutional arrangements, and the role of technical innovation in economic development.

The science policy specialists, who were drawn from the natural sciences, sociology, and political science, directed attention to the relations of science to society. They were concerned with the role of Marxist and Maoist ideologies in the choice and organization of science and technology policy, possible misinterpreta­tions of Chinese goals because of Western values and prejudices, and the role of mass mobilization in attain-

5

ing given scientific and technological goals. They stressed the importance of understanding science policy as a communication and political system and of examin­ing China's development of this system as a basis for comparisons with other less-developed countries.

The China specialists believed that despite the lack of Chinese scientific publications since 1966 materials for research on these questions could be obtained. Recent and prospective visitors to China should be able to indicate sources of data, particularly if before their visits they were given information on areas and questions of interest to those doing research on China's science and technology.

In the final session participants were asked to make suggestions for the development of this new field of inquiry. Possible subjects for initial studies were: the science and technology training system as it is crystalliz­ing in the post-Cultural Revolution phase; the scien­tific research system, including research institutions and

character and methods of research; problems of tech­nological change in relation to the role of foreign technology and how technology is transferred; the role of indigenously generated technology, the choice of techniques in developing these technologies, and the character of decision making about the development of science and technology. It was suggested that such studies might involve collaboration between China specialists and others, and between social scientists and natural scientists and engineers. Suggestions about pro­cedures called for seeking opportunities for research­oriented visits to China, systematically collecting published and unpublished observations of visitors, preparing questionnaires designed to obtain pertinent information from future travelers in China, and inter­viewing refugees and others in Hong Kong. On the basis of this summary session, the chairman concluded that the workshop had taken important steps toward the purposes he had outlined in earlier sessions.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS

CONFERENCE BOARD OF ASSOCIATED RESEARCH COUNCILS

(Joint with the American Council on Education, American Council of Learned Societies, and National Research Council)

Frederick Burkhardt (chairman), Roger W. Heyns (vice­chairman), Lincoln Gordon, Philip Handler, William C. Kelly, Ralph W. Tyler, Paul L. Ward, Robert E. Ward

A new National Board on Graduate Education has been established by the Conference Board to examine the nation's system of graduate education and seek solutions of its complex problems. The new board has received sup­port from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Additional funding is being sought.

The chairman of the new board is David D. Henry, Pro­fessor of Higher Education at the University of Illinois and former president of that university. The membership of the board (which is not yet complete) includes repre­sentatives of university faculties and administrators, em­ployers of recipients of graduate degrees, and the public sector. Graduate students will be represented on panels and conference groups named by the board to study spe­cific topics.

The board expects to direct its attention first to problems of manpower supply and demand and ways in which graduate schools can and should adjust to the changing employment situation. Topics also on the priority list for early consideration are determination of the unit costs

6

of graduate education by field and by type of institution; alternate systems and procedures for graduate education in the United States; aims of graduate education; and access to graduate education for women and minority groups. In exploring these and other problems, the board will con­duct studies, commission papers, and hold conferences. The board will determine its own programs but will re­port semiannually to the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils. The individual Councils will have op­portunity to review the board's reports and statements before publication but will not influence their content. The new board will seek to cooperate with present organi­zations of graduate schools in every way compatible with its autonomous status. The National Research Council's Office of Scientific Personnel will provide administrative services for the board.

CONTEMPORARY CHINA (Joint with the American Council of Learned Societies)

Albert Feuerwerker (chairman), Morton H. Fried, Chalmers Johnson, Philip Kuhn, Dwight H. Perkins, James R. Townsend, Ezra F. Vogel, Arthur P. Wolf; staff, John Creighton Campbell

Chinese studies in the United States have expanded rapidly since 1960, perhaps by a factor of eight to ten as measured by research produced, numbers of students, and other indicators. Quantitative change to this degree neces­sarily has affected the shape of the field: earlier, courses on China were offered at only a few major institutions,

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1

but today scholars trained at these centers are teaching in colleges and universities across the country. Often, these highly trained specialists are "lone scholars"; they have no colleagues nearby with whom to discuss Chinese affairs. In response to this rather recent phenomenon, the com­mittee this year initiated a program of support for "re­gional seminars," to bring together periodically China specialists within a geographical area.

Proposals for such seminars are drawn up by groups of local scholars, who make arrangements with a university in the region to administer the project. Funds are requested from the joint committee to cover such expenses as travel by participants and duplication and distribution of papers or other materials prepared for their use. The first proposal approved for support is the New England China Seminar, which meets monthly at Harvard University. Illustrative of papers presented at recent meetings are those by Jack Chen, a cartoonist and writer who has worked in the People's Republic of China for most of the last 22 years, on life in a people's commune; by Daniel L. Overmyer, Oberlin Col­lege, on folk-Buddhist sects as a structure in the history of Chinese religions; and John Service, University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, on his recent visit to China. The partici­pants include scholars from 22 New England institutions.

The other seminars supported are the Midwest Regional Seminar, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; the California Seminar on Modem China, University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley; and the Northwest Regional Seminar on

China, University of Washington. Although the funds al­located for the seminar program this year have been fully committed, periodic reports on all the seminars will be evaluated by the committee, which hopes to extend the program to provide for greater cooperation-for example, by enabling research centers to make their facilities avail­able to seminar participants for longer periods. Early re­ports from the organizers of these seminars indicate an enthusiastic response from local scholars.

JAPANESE STUDIES (Joint with the American Council of Learned Societies)

Robert E. Ward (chairman), Scott Flanagan, John W. Hall, Marius B. Jansen, Solomon B. Levine, William McCullough, Bernard S. Silberman, Robert J. Smith; staff. John Creighton Campbell

The field of Japanese studies has expanded in a pattern similar to that of Chinese studies (described above), al­though not quite to the same extent. This committee has also initiated a program of support for regional seminars of scholars in its field, under which two seminars are cur­rently holding regular meetings-the Southeast Regional Seminar on Japan, University of Maryland, and the Mid­west Japan Seminar, University of Illinois' at Urbana­Champaign. Consideration is being given to other possi­bilities, including seminars focused on selected topics that might involve participants from wider geographical areas.

PERSONNEL

DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL

The following social scientists have been designated by the seven national organizations associated with the Council to serve as directors of the Council for the three-year term 1972-74:

Alfonso Ortiz, Princeton University, by the American Anthropological Association

James N. Morgan, University of Michigan, by the Ameri­can Economic Association

Murray G. Murphey, University of Pennsylvania, by the American Historical Association

Herbert McClosky, University of California, Berkeley, by the American Political Science Association

Gardner Lindzey, University of Texas at Austin, by the American Psychological Association

Alice S. Rossi, Goucher College, by the American Socio­logical Association

Leo A. Goodman, University of Chicago, by the Ameri­can Statistical Association.

Their credentials as members are scheduled for acceptance by the board of directors of the Council at its spring meet-

MARCH 1972

ing in New York on March 24-25, 1972. Nominated for election as a director-at-large for the balance of the two-year term ending December 31, 1972 is William H. Sewell, Uni­versity of Wisconsin.

COUNCIL OFFICE MANAGER RETIRES

Dorothy Noel Whiteman, better known to many of the Council's directors and personnel as Miss Noel or "DN," will retire on March 15, 1972. She joined the Council's office staff on June 30, 1930 and has effectively managed the details of its operation for many years. Her record of happy and loyal service to the Council is and may well remain unmatched. Founders of the Council appreciated her capabilities and ever willing helpfulness. Succeeding generations of Council members and office colleagues have continued to be grateful for her skillful and efficient atten­tion to the daily needs of an expanding office. Her wish to retire was accepted with true regret and full recognition of her unique contribution to the conduct of the Council's affairs. All who have been associated with Mrs. Whiteman know how sorely she will be missed. They join in extend­ing to her their warmest wishes for the future and in ex-

7

pressing their appreciation of her friendship and unfail­ing aid.

COUNCIL STAFF

John Creighton Campbell, who has been serving as staff of the Joint Committees (of the American Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Research Council) on Contemporary China, Japanese Studies, and Korean Stud­ies, as well as of their various subcommittees and of the SSRC's Committee on Exchanges with Asian Institutions, will take a leave of absence from April 1 through Septem­ber 30, 1972. During this period he will be engaged in com­pleting preparation of his doctoral dissertation for submis­sion to the Department of Political Science, Columbia University. William R. Bryant, who is also a candidate for the Ph.D. in political science at Columbia, will serve in Mr. Campbell's place as staff of these committees for six months. Mr. Bryant has been employed for the past three years as an international economist, specializing on Japan, at the Stanford Research Institute.

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), Morton H. Fried, Chalmers John­son, Philip Kuhn, Dwight H. Perkins, James R. Townsend, Ezra F. Vogel, and Arthur P. Wolf-at its meeting on February 4-5 awarded 17 grants for research:

8

Thomas P. Bernstein, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University, for research in Hong Kong on educational and career opportunities, moderni­zation, and the political process in China

Parris H. Chang, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, for research in Taiwan and Hong Kong on military intervention in Chinese politics in the 1960's

Tao-shing Chang, visiting scholar, Center for Chinese Studies, University of California, Berkeley, for prepa­ration of an "inner history" of personal experience relating to Chinese attitudes toward foreign policy questions

Madeleine Chi (Sister), Assistant Professor of Asian Studies, Manhattanville College, for research in Japan and the United States on a political biography of Ts'ao Ju-lin

Alexander Eckstein, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan, for research in the United States on the growth and structural transformation of the Man­churian economy, 1920-60

Edward Friedman, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, for research on Chinese foreign policy in the era of Mao Tse-tung

Bernie M. Frolic, Associate Professor of Political Sci­ence, York University (on leave 1971-72, Research Fellow, Harvard University), for research in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China on rural­urban relationships in China since 1957

Anne Y. Hashimoto, Visiting Senior Research Sinolo­gist, Chinese Linguistics Project, Princeton University, for field work in Hong Kong on Yue dialects

Harold C. Hinton, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University, for research in Tokyo, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Europe on the role of the military in the formulation of Chinese foreign policy since 1965

Suzanne Pepper Kulkarni, New York, N.Y., for research in Hong Kong on education and political development in Communist China, 1949-70

Chong-Sik Lee, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, for research in the United States, London, Hong Kong, Taipei, and Tokyo on communism and counterinsurgency in Manchuria, 1925-41

Stephen M. Olsen, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Stan­ford University, for a historical and ecological study of ethnic and social stratification in Taiwan

William L. Parish, Jr., Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago, for research in Hong Kong on the informal organization of the contemporary Chinese bureaucracy

Michael R. Saso, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Washington State University, for research in Taiwan on patterns of demographic and social change in a city undergoing industrialization in north Taiwan

Hung-mao Tien, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Waukesha, for research in the United States, Tokyo, and Paris on local systems in Kwangsi: a case study of sociopolitical changes, 1925-36

Lyman P. Van Slyke, Associate Professor of History, Stanford University, for research in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan on continuity and change in Tsou-p'ing hsien, Shantung, in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries

George T. Yu, Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for research in Tan­zania and Sweden on Chinese-Tanzanian cooperation in international development

GRANTS FOR JAPANESE STUDIES

Under the new program sponsored by the Joint Com­mittee on Japanese Studies (of the ACLS and SSRC), its Subcommittee on Grants for Research-Solomon B. Levine (chairman), James T. Araki, John W. Hall, Robert J. Smith, Ann Waswo, and Martin E. Weinstein-at its meet­ing on February 25 voted to make 16 awards:

Koya Azumi, Research Associate, East Asian Institute, Columbia University, for research on culture and or­ganizations: a comparative study of Japanese factories

Karen W. Brazell, Assistant Professor of East Asian Studies, Princeton University, for research in Japan on No drama in its total theatrical context, and its mani­festation of religious ideas

James F. Cahill, Professor of the History of Art, Univer­sity of California, Berkeley, for research in the United States, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong on early Nanga painting in Japan and its Chinese sources

John W. Dower, Assistant Professor of Japanese History, University of Wisconsin, Madison, for research in Japan on the aftermath of empire: Yoshida Shigeru (1878-1954) and postwar Japan

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1

Robert Evans, Jr., Professor of Economics, Brandeis Uni­versity, for research in Japan on the impact of the use of computer-assisted employment services on the Japa­nese labor market

Calvin L. French, Associate Professor of the History of Art, University of Michigan, for research in Japan and Taiwan on the painting and poetry of Yosano Buson (1716-83)

Allen C. Kelley, Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, for research in Tokyo on Meiji Japanese economic history (joint with Jeffrey G. Wil­liamson)

Hiroshi Miyaji, Associate Professor of Japanese Studies, University of Pennsylvania, for research in Japan and the United States on Neo-Confucianism and Shintoism in Tokugawa Japan: Yamazaki Ansai (1618-82)

Ray A. Moore, Associate Professor of History, Amherst College, for research in Japan on Japanese youth and America, 1945-57: the response of young intellectuals to national defeat and the American Occupation re­form program

William F. Morton, Assistant Professor of History, York College, City University of New York, for research in Japan on its relations with China, 1870's-1970's

Susumu Nagara, Assistant Professor of Japanese, Univer­sity of Michigan, for research on the history of the Japanese language

Kenneth B. Pyle, Associate Professor of History, Univer­sity of Washington, for research in the United States and Tokyo on Japanese nationalism and the Home Ministry, 1905-31

Henry D. Smith, II, Assistant Professor of History, Princeton University, for research in Tokyo on pat­terns of urban cultural change in Japan, 1900-1945

Nathaniel B. Thayer, Visiting Associate Professor of Po­litical Science, Hunter College, City University of New York, for research on the political role of the Japanese press

Jeffrey G. Williamson, Professor of Economics, Univer­sity of Wisconsin, Madison, for research in Tokyo on Meiji Japanese economic history (joint with Allen C. Kelley)

Kozo Yamamura, Visiting Professor of Economics, Uni­versity of Hawaii, for research in Japan on its eco­nomic history from the mid-seventh century to the establishment of the Tokugawa Shogunate

GRANTS FOR KOREAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Korean Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Chong-Sik Lee (chairman), Herbert R. Barringer, Han-Kyo Kim, Paul W. Kuznets, Gari K. Ledyard, James Palais, and Edward W. Wagner-at its meeting on February 11-12 awarded 9 grants for research under a new program first offered this year:

Wonmo Dong, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University, for research on the politics of social change in colonial Korea, 1910-45

Mantaro J. Hashimoto, Associate Professor of Chinese and Japanese Linguistics, Princeton University, for a historical comparative study in Japan and Korea of Sino-Korean

Gregory Henderson, Associate Professor of Public Di­plomacy, Tufts University, for research in Seoul on the

MARCH 1972

u'ia1 of 11 arrested members of the Korean National Assembly, 1949-50

Chong Sun Kim, Associate Professor of History, Univer­sity of Rhode Island, for research in Japan and Korea on unity and disintegration in the Silla Kingdom

Roy U. T. Kim, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Drexel University, for research in Seoul on the Pan­munjom Negotiations, 1951-71

Sam-Woo Kim, Toronto, Canada, for research in the United States and Canada on the contribution of Chinul (Il58-1210) to Korean Buddhism

Yoon Hough Kim, Assistant Professor of Sociology, East Carolina University, for research in Korea on the social life of the blind in that country

Young I. Lew, Instructor in History, University of Hous­ton, for research on the structure and function of the Korean government, 1895-1905

Doo Soo Suh, Associate Professor of Korean Languages and Literature, University of Washington, for research on the P'ansori, traditional Korean drama series

GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies and administered from the office of the Foreign Area Fellowship Program-Joseph Grunwald (chairman), Julio Cotler, John T. Dorsey, Jr., Richard R. Fagen, Carl F. Hereford, Franklin W. Knight, June Nash, Joseph L. Sommers, and Osvaldo Sunkel-at its meeting on January 28-30 awarded 22 grants for research and 5 collaborative research grants:

Gmnts for research

Gerard H. Behague, Associate Professor of Music, Uni­versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for researcli. in Brazil on Afro-Brazilian cult musics

Victoria R. Bricker, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Tulane University, for research in Mexico on the Caste War of Yucatan

Jesus Chavarria, Assistant Professor of History, Univer­sity of California, Santa Barbara, for research in Peru on the birth of the Peruvian nation

Frank N. Dauster, Professor of Romance Languages, Rutgers University, for research in Mexico on poets after the Contemporaneos

David Felix, Professor of Economics, Washington Uni­versity, for research in Latin America on product­innovating strategies of consumer goods firms

David W. Foster, Professor of Spanish, Arizona State Uni­versity, for research in Argentina on literary criticism

Louis W. Goodman, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Yale University, for research in Latin America on decision making in multinational corporations

Edward C. Hansen, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Queens College, City University of New York, for re­search in Sao Paulo on social mobility

Benjamin Keen, Professor of History, Northern Illinois University, for research in the United States on the historiography of the Spanish conquest, sixteenth to twentieth centuries

Peter F. Klaren, Adjunct Assistant Professor of History, Dartmouth College, for research in Peru on the agrari­an history of the northern provinces, 1880-1940

Herald E. Lewald, Professor of Romance Languages, University of Tennessee, for research in Argentina on Eduardo Mallea's essays and fiction

9

Clara E. Lida, Assistant Professor of History, Wesleyan University, for research in Argentina on immigration and anarchism, 1870-90

Carmelo Mesa-Lago, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, for research on the social security programs of several Latin American countries

Sarah K. Myers, Assistant Editor, Encyclopedia Bri­tannica, for research in Peru on the cultural geography of squatter settlements in Lima

Eul-Soo Pang, Assistant Professor of History, California State College, Hayward, for research in Brazil on the cacao economy, 1890-1945

Richard Price, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Yale University, for research in Surinam on the Saramaka Maroons: Afro-Americans of the tropical forest

Jaime E. Rodriguez 0., Assistant Professor of History, California State College, Long Beach, for research in Ecuador on its agricultural history in the nineteenth century (renewal)

Bertram Silverman, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hofstra University, for research on the role of labor in Cuban economic strategy

Franklin Tugwell, Assistant Professor of Government, Pomona College, for research in Venezuela on private sector interests and the development of policy making

John D. Wirth, Associate Professor of History, Stanford University, for research in Brazil on Minas Gerais in the Brazilian Federation, 1889-1937

Jan Peter Wogart, Assistant Professor of Economics, Uni­versity of Miami, for research in Brazil on labor ab­sorption, income, and structure of the service sector in northern and southern regions

Iris M. Zavala, Professor of Hispanic Languages and Lit­erature, State University of New York at Stony Brook, for research in Puerto Rico on social thought in the nineteenth-century Puerto Rican novel

Collaborative research grants

David Barkin, Associate Professor of Economics, Herbert Lehman College, City University of New York, and Roberto Jarry R., Director, Department of Planning and Research, National Council of Scholastic Aid and Scholarships, Catholic University of Chile, for a com­parative study in Mexico and Chile of their school systems

10

Emilia V. da Costa, Associate Professor of History, Catho­lic University of Sao Paulo, and Richard Graham, As­sociate Professor of History, University of Texas at Austin, for research in Brazil on oligarchic liberalism: the political system of Brazil, 1830-1930

Richard D. Mallon, Development Adviser, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, and Juan V. Sourrouille, Buenos Aires, for research on recent Argentine economic policy (renewal of grant made in 1968-69)

William H. Nicholls, Professor of Economics, Vander­bilt University, and Ruy Miller Paiva, Senior Staff Economist, Ministry of Planning, Rio de Janeiro, for research in Brazil on the structure and productivity of its agriculture, 1963-73

Carlos M. Pelaez, Assistant Professor of Economics, Van­derbilt University, and Wilson Suzigan, Director of Industrial Finance, Ministry of Planning, Brasilia, for research in Brazil on its monetary history, 1822-1970 (renewal)

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Socie­ties-Marvin Zonis (chairman), Robert McC. Adams, Hamid Algar, Paul Ward English, Muhsin S. Mahdi, and I. William Zartman-at its meeting on February 25 awarded 18 grants for research:

Barbara Aswad, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Wayne State University, for research in Turkey on marriage and visiting patterns among tlle elite families of a small provincial city

Use D. Cirtautas, Associate Professor of Turkic, Univer­sity of Washington, for research in Afghanistan on linguistic-folkloristic materials on Uzbek dialects of North Afghanistan

Erica Dodd, Assistant Professor of Cultural Studies, American University of Beirut, for research in London on the Kor'anic inscriptions in mosques

Hasan Mohammed EI-Shamy, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, American University in Cairo, for research in the United States on the brother­sister syndrome in Arabic folk culture

John P. Entelis, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Fordham University, for research in Paris and Tunis on university students and an emerging "counter­culture" in Tunisian politics

Hafez F. Farmayan, Associate Professor of History, Uni­versity of Texas at Austin, for research in Tehran on the intellectual and social history of nineteenth­century Iran

Oleg Grabar, Professor of Fine Arts, Harvard University, for research in the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Iran on Islamic art of Central Asia

William L. Hanaway, Jr., Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature, University of Pennsylvania, for research in London and Iran on the pre-Safavid Persian inscriptions in Khorasan

R. Stephen Humphreys, Assistant Professor of History and Arabic, State University of New York at Buffalo, for research in Beirut and Damascus on the Ayyubids of Damascus, from the death of Saladin to the Mongol invasion (renewal)

Samir Makdisi, Assistant Division Chief, International Monetary Fund, for research mainly in Syria and Leba­non on the role of financial policy in developing econo­mies, with particular reference to Syria and Lebanon

Afaf Lutfi al-Sayyid Marsot, Associate Professor of His­tory, University of California, Los Angeles, for re­search in England on the nationalist movement in Egypt and the Liberal Constitutionalist Party, 1919-36

Lawrence Rosen, Russell Sage Foundation Resident in Law and Society, University of Chicago Law School, for research in Morocco on its family law

Nadav Safran, Professor of Government, Harvard Uni­versity, for research in Israel on the evolution of Israel and its relations with the United States, 1947-71

Stanford J. Shaw, Professor of Turkish and Near Eastern History, University of California, Los Angeles, for re­search in London, Vienna, Istanbul, and Paris on the modernization of the Ottoman empire under Abd ul­Mamid II, 1876-1909

John Simmons, Lecturer on Economics, Harvard Uni­versity, for research in Tunisia on the rate of return to education for white collar workers in Tunis

VOLUME 26. NUMBER 1

J01m Masson Smith, Jr., Associate Professor of History, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Is­tanbul on the numismatic and monetary history of the Mongols in Iran, 1240-1335

Mark A. Tessler, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, for research in

Tunisia, Morocco, and Israel on the political culture of nonassimilating minorities: a comparative study of Jews in Tunisia and Morocco and Arabs in Israel

Gernot L. Windfuhr, Associate Professor of Iranian Lan­guages and Literatures, University of Michigan, for research in Iran on the modern Persian short story

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.J.: 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.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Novem­mer 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.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1970. 190 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $2.45.

Geography, edited by Edward J. Taaffe. Report of the Geography Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sci­ences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., May 1970. 154 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $2.45.

Htstory 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.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., March 1971. 160 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

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

Political Science, edited by Heinz Eulau and James G. March. 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.J.: 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.

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: Management of a Revolutionary Society, edited by John M. H_ Lindbeck. Product of a conference sponsored by the Subcommittee on Chinese Government and

MARCH 197%

Politics, Joint Committee on Contemporary China, Au­gust 18-22, 1969. Seattle: University of Washington Press, July 1971. 406 pages. Cloth, $12.50; paper, $4.95.

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.

Tne City in Communist China, edited by John Wilson Lewis. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Sub­committees on Research on Chinese Society and on Chinese Government and Politics, Joint Committee on Contemporary China, December 28, 1968 - January 4, 1969. Stanford: Stanford University Press, April 1971. 462 pages. $12.95.

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.

Crises and Sequences in Political Development, by Leonard Binder, James S. Coleman, Joseph LaPalombara, Lucian W. Pye, Sidney Verba, and Myron Weiner. Studies in Political Development 7, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, November 1971. 337 pages. $8.00.

Experiments in Primary Education, 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.

The Foreign Trade of Mainland China, by Feng-hwa Mah. Sponsored by the former Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago and New York: Aldine . Atherton, Octo­ber 1971. 287 pages. $9.75.

The Machine-Building Industry in Communist China, by Chu-Yuan Cheng. Sponsored by the former Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago and New York: Al­dine· Atherton, September 1971. 356 pages. $9.75.

People of the United States in the Twentieth Century, by Irene B. Taeuber and Conrad Taeuber. Sponsored by the former Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1972. c. llOO pages. $5.75.

Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, edited by Dell Hymes. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Com­mittee on Sociolinguistics and the University of the West Indies, April 9-12, 1968. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni· versity Press, September 1971. 538 pages. $23.50.

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.

11

ANNOUNCEMENT

SUMMER TRAINING INSTITUTE ON PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY FOR SOCIAL SCIENTISTS,

!vfASSACHUSETTS MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, BOSTON, JUNE 19-AUGUST 11, 1972

This eight-week summer institute will be conducted under the auspices of the Council's Committee on Biologi­cal Bases of Social Behavior, with support granted to the Council by the National Institute of Mental Health.

The purpose of the institute is to provide about 20 selected social scientists with intensive training in the con­cepts and techniques of psychophysiological research, start­ing from basic information about physiology, electronics, and laboratory techniques, and relating these fundamentals to theoretical concepts in biology and the social and be­havioral sciences. Applications are encouraged from ad­vanced predoctoral and recent postdoctoral students in psychology, social psychology, sociology, anthropology, and other social and behavioral sciences. An elementary back­ground in biology, physics, and mathematics would be desirable but is not required. All participants will be 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 round­trip economy airline fare. Allowances for dependents will not be provided. Arrangements for university housing can be made, or information on private housing supplied if desired.

The director of the institute will be David Shapiro, Senior Associate in Psychiatry (Psychology), Massachusetts Mental Health Center, and the codirector will be Bernard Tursky, Professor of Political Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Other members of the teaching

staff will be drawn from the faculties of Harvard Univer­sity and of other universities. There will be guest lecturers for special topics.

The prograIJl. of the institute will consist of seminars, laboratory training, lectures, and demonstrations. The cardiovascular and electrodermal systems will be considered in special detail, in addition to other autonomic and central nervous system processes. Relationships between peripheral physiological measures and basic neural control systems will be stressed. Instruction will be given in basic physi­ology, electricity, and electronics, recording technique!. and instrumentation, design and analysis of experiments, and all aspects of experimental procedure. Applications of psychophysiology in the social sciences will be reviewed and discussed, and the advantages and limitations of physiological indices will be examined in detail. Special emphasis will be given throughout the program, in labora­tories and seminars on topics of particular interest to students, to individual discussion and interaction among staff and students. The participants will work in small groups in the laboratory, and will be encouraged to carry out independent research projects.

Application forms and further information may be oh-tained from:

Dr. David Shapiro Psychophysiology Laboratories Massachusetts Mental Health Center 74 Fenwood Road Boston, Massachusetts 02115

Completed applications and supporting documents must be in his hands by April 10, 1972. Notification of awards will be made about May 1.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

230 PARK AVENUE. ~EW YORK. N.Y. 10017

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

Directors, 1972: DORWIN CAllTWRIGHT, PHILIP D. CURTIN, RENEE C. Fox, DANIEL X. FIlE.EDMAN. LEo A. GOODMAN, MATTHEW HOLDEN,

JR., DELL HYMES, LAWRENCE R. KLEIN, GARDNER LINDZEY, LEON LIPSO~, HEIUIERT MCCLOSKY, JA~IES N. MORGAN, MURRAY G. MURI'HEY.

ALFOIlOSO ORTIZ, JOHN \V. PRATT, AUSTIN RANNEY, ALBERT REES, HENRY W . RIECKEN, ALICE S. ROSSI, DAVID M. SCHNEIDER, \VILLIAM

H . SEWELL, NEIL J. SMELSER, M . BREWSTER SMITH, EDWARD J. TAAFFE. KARL E. TAEUIlER, JOHN M. THO~IPSON, RALPH W. TyLt.'R. ANDREW

P . VAYDA, ROBERT E. WARD, CHARLES V. \VILLIE

Officers and Staff: RALPH W. TYLER, Acting President; BRYCE WOOD. Executive Associate; ELEANOR C. ISBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL,

JR., DONALD S. SHOUP, DAVID JENNESS. Staff Associates; JOHN CREIGH 10... CA~lpBELL. ROBERT F . BORUCH, Staff Assistants; CATHERINE V.

RONNAN. Fillancial Secretary

12 3~