SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 30 . NUMBER 1 . MARCH 1976 605 THIRD AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

On Making Social Psychology More Useful

IN RECENT YEARS, there has been a dramatic increase in the appearance of socially relevant research and in the utilization of consultants who have their intellectual roots in social psychology. In part, this increase reflects the pressures generated by the student rebellions of the 1960s and, in part, the widespread social malaise and unrest that has been produced by the accelerating pace of sociotechnological change, the war in Vietnam, and the ecological and resource crises.

Interest in developing a "socially useful" social psy­chology is hardly new. Modem social psychology was in its birth concerned with developing knowledge that had immediate social relevance. This is so whether one dates its origin to the early studies by Lewin and his students of authoritarian and democratic group leaders, or to the even earlier comparisons of individual and group productivity by such people as Bechterev, Good­win Watson, and F. H. Allport, or to the work on stereo­types and attitudes by such scholars as Lippmann, Likert, Murphy, and Sherif. However, this early interest in de­veloping and applying a socially useful psychology largely disappeared from the mainstream of American

• The author is profellOr of psychology and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and was chairman of the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology (1964-74). This article is reprinted, with minor deletions, from his introductory chapter in A.pplying Social Psychology, edited by Morton Deutsch and Harvey A. Hornstein (Hills­dale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975). The book is a product of a conference on the application of social psychology spon­sored by the committee in 1973. (See Items, December 1975, page 55.)

In addition to Mr. Deutsch, the members of the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology during its last year were Donald T. Campbell, Northwestern University; Martin Irle, Mannheim Univer­sity; Jaromfr Janoukk, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences; Harold H. Kelley, University of California. Los Angeles; Serge Moscovici. Univer­sity of Paris; Luis I. Ramallo. Latin American School of Sociology. Santiago. Chile; Henry Tajfel, University of Bristol; staB. David Jenness.

by Morton Deutsch·

academic social psychology for about 15 to 20 years­the period of the 19505 to the late 1960s. An analysis of why this interest disappeared might be useful in preventing the current resurgence of interest in social usefulness from suffering a similar fate. Some of the reasons were internal to the discipline of social psychol­ogy, some related to the internal arrangements of uni­versities and funding agencies, and some reflected broader societal influences.

Factors internal to the discipline

Post-World War II American social psychology has been largely dominated, until very recently, by Lewin and his students. Lewin himself thoroughly integrated the two orientations of social psychology: the theoretical­research orientation which is imbued with the tradi­tional normative concerns of the scientist-formal ele­gance, logical rigor, an intersubjective objectivity, and robustness of empirical verification-and the problem­centered orientation of the socially concerned practi­tioner. He combined this integration with a sense of the necessity to provide knowledge that could be use­ful in bringing about change and an awareness of the

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE

On Making Social Psychology More Useful­Morton Deutsch

7 Grants to Minority Scholars: A Three-Year Report-Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.

S New Publications

9 Current Activities at the Council

10 The Study of Inequality in African Societies -Sara S. Berry

12 Council's Monographs on the 193O's Depres­sion Are Reissued

1

importance of creating the conditions which would en­courage the actual use of such knowledge by those in the position to act upon it. Unfortunately, this fusion of orientations was less true of his students. More char­acteristically, a split developed which widened into a chasm after Lewin's sudden and premature death. Lewin's unifying presence had been able to hold the diverging tendencies together and, in his absence, the bifurcating dispositions became dominant.

Feeling a need to establish himself as a "real" scien­tist-and fully aware of the weaknesses of his theories and the imperfections of his methodologies-the theory­oriented research social psychologist had to be "pure" and "tough minded." He could ill afford to be identi­fied with evangelical movements led by social psycholo­gist practitioners nor could he be associated with the sloppy make-do research which was mitially character­istic of that on complex social problems. Hence, it is not surprising or remarkable that the laboratory became his workplace and that he proudly identified himself as an "experimental social psychologist." This work­place identity provided a base of security as he reached out and tried to stake a scientific claim on phenomena which the more established sciences had viewed as too value-laden or insubstantial for scientific study. The laboratory provided more than security; it was an excit­ing place to be as experimental social psychologists in one ingenious experiment after another demonstrated that important social phenomena can be captured and investigated in the laboratory, phenomena such as lead­ership, group cohesion, group productivity, conformity, trust and suspicion, social influence, cooperation and communication networks, cognitive dissonance, inter­personal conflict, interpersonal attraction, and so forth.

It is difficult to say why the social practitioners of so­cial psychology-represented initially by the same group movement developed at New Britain and then Bethel­took on such an evangelical tone. The personalities and backgrounds of its early leaders undoubtedly contrib­uted to this evangelism. But more importantly, the small group movement fed into and fed upon a widespread social need and, itself, became captured by and a servant of that need. [See Kurt Back's insightful analysis of sensitivity training and the encounter movement in his book, Beyond Words (1972).] Whatever its cause, the major mode of social psychological practice was zealous fn tone and was unduly sensitive to critiques by re­searchers. Thus, it could not tolerate or be tolerated by those social psychologists who were trying to create a scientific social psychology.

Paradoxically, the origin of the sensitivity training movement can be traced to a summer workshop on intergroup relations held in New Britain, Connecticut

2

in 1946, which failed to develop a productive relation­ship between the two groups-the practitioners and the researchers. This failure was repeated on a larger and grander scale in the summer of 1947 at the first of the now world-known Bethel workshops. Here the research­ers and practitioners formed two openly anatagonistic groups-the researchers were aghast at how the aura and trappings of "science" were being employed for propagating the "gospel" of sensivity training, and the practitioners were embittered by the unappreciative, critical, "purer than thou" attitudes of the researchers. The resulting chasm between the two orientations con­tributed to the neglect of applied social psychology by academic programs in social psychology and to the de­velopment of a field of applications that was not being tested and guided by research.

The universities and the funding agencies

The universities and the funding agencies have also contributed to the neglect of applications of academic social psychology through their structural arrangements and their reward systems. This contribution is evident if we consider four themes ... (I) social problems rarely can be understood, diagnosed, solved, and acted upon in the perspective of one theory or even of one social science discipline such as social psychology; (2) the meaningful application of scientific generalizations and methodology to particular situations requires detailed knowledge of the specific situations; (3) the time span of work on applied problems is typically different from that of most academic research; and (4) the resources required for problem-oriented research are much larger than those for laboratory research.

The organization of most universities is such that it provides continuous regular funding to faculty mem­bers who ar,e discipline centered rather than to those who are problem centered or generalists. It is obvious that such conditions permit only the foolhardy or those who are already well established in a discipline to de­velop the broadly based orientations required for fruitful

. work on important social problems. The situation is even worse than the preceding statement suggests. Within the discipline of social psychology (as well as many others), the reward systems-the conditions that affect appoint­ment, promotion, tenure, and esteem of one's colleagues -enhance the tendency toward work on specialized topics within the discipline rather than on problems generated by pressing social concerns. The desire to have a faculty to cover the various subareas of social psychol­ogy leads to even greater specialization; the desire for promotion and tenure leads to pressure for research and scholarship that can lead to frequent publication, i.e., to small-scale research extending over short time periods

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 1

on currently fashionable topics in the field. The fund­ing practices of government agencies and foundations often have much the same consequences.

In addition to the foregoing, the separation-and the usual invidious distinctions--between the graduate schools of liberal arts and sciences and the professiona'l schools has the parallel tendency to separate practice from research and theory. Consider the separation be­tween psychologists and schools of education. Even where [social] psychologists are included in such schools, they are often seen to be on the fringes of their dis­ciplines and are looked down upon by their colleagues in the more traditional departments of psychology un­less they have otherwise established their credentials as research social psychologists. The result has been that the professional schools have, until the recent shortage of academic positions, found it difficult to recruit the most talented young social psychologists to their faculty.

Broader societal influences

Political conditions have also played a role in en­couraging and discouraging the applications of social psychology. Paradoxically, when funding agencies under the edicts of conservative federal administrations have pressured for relevance, the effect has often been just the opposite from that which was intended-an increase occurred only in pseudorelevance, and much rewriting of project proposals to use the "relevance" terminology took place. The retreat from real relevance in the 1950s partially paralleled the McCarthy (Joseph, not Eugene) era. Social psychologists, as individuals, are often on the left side of the political spectrum, and they are reluc­tant to allow themselves to be employed as technicians in the service of policies which they view with disfavor. The opportunity to do applied work and the financial support for such work is obviously more apt to come from those who have political-administrative power and financial resources at their disposal than those who do not. The realities of the lives of social psychologists, their entrapment in a middle-class standard of living, and also their training provide them with little skill in doing applied work without ample resources and they have little potential for sustaining such work without compensation: neither resources nor compensation in ample amounts are likely to be available from low power groups.

The reluctance of many socially concerned social psy­chologists to do work directly for an "establishment" they viewed with disfavor (a government waging a bar­baric war in Vietnam, an industry having little social conscience, a school system not concerned with fostering democratic values), of course, led many to shun applied work since the perceived opportunities for such work

MARCH 1976

were usually in settings controlled by the establishment. They were not interested in using social psychology to promote more harmonious and productive management -worker relations in a factory manufacturing napalm bombs or some other destructive or useless product.

The plight of the radical social psychologist in a so­ciety which currently has no viable radical social move­ments is an especially difficult one. There is little that he can do professionally that he is apt to regard as of immediate social significance apart from engaging in research to demystify and delegitimatize the workings of the system. But since it is already sufficiently demysti­fied and delegitimatized for him, he is likely to view such work as routine rather than intellectually reward­ing. Perhaps the only way out of this plight for the radi­cal social psychologist is for him to recognize that there is a need to develop an adequate theory of social change, a theory of how to move from where we are to where he wants us to be. Such a theory is a prerequisite for intel­ligent social action. Although not having the excitement and bravura of manning the barricades against the estab­lishment, intellectual work to contribute to the develop­ment of a theory to guide social action may be the only socially useful, professional activity in which a radical social psychologist can engage with integrity. How much of the work necessary for forging such a theory will have to be done in the library, in the laboratory, or in the field is difficult to prejudge. Karl Marx spent a good deal of his time in the library, Sigmund Freud spent many of his hours interacting with his patients, and Jean Piaget observed his children systematically over a period of years. Each of these productive theorists also spent a great deal of time thinking and writing.

The social psychologist who believes he can work with the system or within the system to do applied work which is meaningful has a much easier task than his radical counterpart. There are many different projects he can undertake which will receive ample support ....

A common value framework

Despite the diversity of applied work done by social psychologists, it seems reasonable to say that much of it is imbued with a common value framework that is partly derived from the Lewinian emphasis on participatory democracy and the psychotherapeutic stress on open­ness, spontaneity, closeness, warmth, expression of feel­ings, and authenticity. The framework presupposes that man is preeminently a group animal and that he fulfills himself through active, responsible, cooperative partici­pation in the affairs of his group as an equal with other members, participation which is characterized by open­ness, warmth, spontaneity, etc. It further posits that groups (organizations, communities, etc.) which are con-

3

trolled democratically through the active, responsible participation of their members are likely to be more productive and more gratifying to their members than groups which are not so controlled. It also assumes that the basic interests of the different members of a given group are more concordant than opposed.

Paradoxically, this value framework has struck respon­sive chords in radical as well as conservative social cir­cles. Social psychology consultants operating within this framework have worked effectively with Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and black militant groups as well as with the United States State Department and large multinational industries. How is it possible for a social psychologist to serve groups with such different ideologies? Some might assert that it is a delusion to think that social psychology can serve such different interests equally well; that the value framework of social psychology merely perpetuates the myth of democracy and common interests, a myth which serves conservative rather than radical interests. Perhaps this is so and It

must be recognized that in practice the framework is sometimes implemented to make a mockery of such con­cepts as participatory democracy, authenticity, and spon­taneity: witness the many astute criticisms of sensitivity training and organizational development (e.g., Bonner, 1959; Odiorne, 1963; Pages, 1971). Nevertheless, there are social psychologists of considerable personal integrity who. operating within the value orientation specified above, have helped groups within the establishment as well as those opposed to it to function more effectively.

It seems possible to help such diverse groups if one maintains a compartmentalized view, focusing only upon the subsystem with which one is working and neglecting the broader system of which it is a component. Within this restricted focus. the assumption of concordance of interests is often a reasonable one even though it may be invalid in the broader perspective. By restricting his value framework to the setting in which he is operating, a social psychologist may, for example, help free the members of a management group within a firm with the consequence that it has more effective power to manu­facture and merchandise an essentially worthless or fraudulent product. The position of consumers may have been damaged even as the situation of the firm has been improved.

Without a theory of broader societal processes which enables him to consider the interdependence among different components of the society, it may well be that the social psychologist can only do applied work if he operates under the assumption that the successful im­plementation of the value framework anywhere in a system is good in and of itself and that the broader societal consequences of so doing may be disregarded

4

because they are impossible to predict or assess. How­ever, this assumption is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain in the face of widespread criticism of the social sciences as biased in support of preserving the status quo. We are in need of a profound self-examina­tion of our work as social psychologists to understand its social consequences.

What must be done

All of the preceding discussion is meant to suggest that if we wish to develop a social psychology that is con­tinually rather than sporadically interested in being so­cially useful, we must do several things.

1. We must institutionalize the conditions which will reduce the barriers and help to sustain the motivation to do socially useful research. This will obviously re­quire changes in the criteria for faculty appointment, promotion. and tenure that would seek to provide more encouragement and reward for work that deviates from traditional academic scholarship. It will also require a parallel rethinking of our criteria for selecting, training. and rewarding our graduate students. In addition to this, at least in the United States. it will require exten­sive restructuring of the relationship between graduate:; schools of liberal arts and sciences and the professional schools. Despite Thorndike and his glorious career at Teachers College. the relationship between psychology and schools of education remains a scandal-and what more natural domain for the application of psychology is there than education?

2. We must also develop a social psychology that is useful. This development would require us to remain aware of the unique character of social psychology. Although social psychology is clearly insufficient. in it­self. to proyide solutions to many social problems and must be fused with such other disciplines as sociology, economics. political science, personality psychology. and physiological psychology, it nevertheless has a distinctive perspective to offer to the fusion. This perspective arises from the unique focus of social psychology upon the interplay between psychological and social processes. More than any other discipline, it is concerned with both the person and his society, the individual and his group. It is concerned with how the individual's motiva­tions, attitudes, cognitions. and perceptions affect his relations to his group and also how his interaction with his group affects these various psychological processes. Social psychology is more apt to pay attention to the conditions which promote discrepancy as well as con­vergence between psychological and social realities.

Several key notions in the social psychological ap­proach are (Deutsch. 1973):

VOLUME 30. NUMBER 1

1. Each participant in a social interaction responds to the other in terms of his perceptions and cognitions of the other; these mayor may not correspond to the other's actualities.

2. Each participant in a social interaction, being cognizant of the other's capacity for awareness, is influenced by his own expectations concerning the other's actions as well as by his perceptions of the other's conduct. These expectations mayor may not be accurate; the ability to take the role of the other and to predict the other's behavior is not notable in either interpersonal or intergroup crises.

8. Social interaction is not only initiated by motives but also generates new motives and alters old ones. It is not only deter­mined but also determining. In the process of rationalizing and justifying actions that have been taken and effects that have produced, new values and motives emerge. Moreover, social interaction exposes one to models and exemplars which may be identified with and imitated. Thus, a child's personality is shaped largely by the interactions he has with his parents and peers and by the people with whom he identifies.

4. Social interaction takes place in a social environment­in a family, a group, a community, a nation, a civilization­that has developed techniques, symbols, categories, rules, and values that are relevant to human interactions. Hence, to understand the events that occur in social interactions one must comprehend the interplay of these events with the broader social context in which they occur.

S. Even though each participant in a social interaction, whether an individual or a group, is a complex unit com­posed of many interacting subsystems, the participant can act in a unified way toward some aspect of his environment. Decision-making within the individual as within the nation can entail a struggle among different interests and values for control over action. Internal structure and internal process, while less observable in individuals than in groups, are charac­teristic of all social units.

Oddly enough, social psychology has been most defi­cient in living up to its own distinctive perspective in its failure to consider in detail the specific properties of the individual and the social as they relate to one an­other. Social psychology, as it now exists, is a peculiar discipline: it has much to say in general but little to say in particular. Many of us believe we know a good deal about how abstract man will behave in abstract situations but we know very little about how particular men will behave in particular situations. We know little about how different sorts of people behave in the dif­ferent kinds of situations that populate their everyday lives.

We have been deficient in characterizing the psycho­logical properties of social situations and the social con­sequences of different personalities, particularly as they interact with one another. As social psychologists, we know that environments (the nonsocial as well as the social) profoundly influence the individual and his be­havior, yet we have paid little attention to the work of the psychological ecologists (such as Barker and his colleagues), the structural anthropologists (such as Levi­Strauss), or the environmental psychologists. For social

MAlleH 1976

psychology to be useful, it will have to know more about existing behavior settings--from antique shops to zoos-­and how they are modified by the broader social context in which they appear. It will also have to develop an interest in constructing and altering, as well as invent­ing, settings in order to acquire a deep understanding of the psychological properties of different environments.

Despite its ancestry in individual psychology, social psychology has been too much a depersonalized psychol­ogy of homogeneous individuals. The individuality of people is frequently ignored in social psychological theorizing and research. Yet if we are to be socially use­ful, we cannot continue to ignore the obvious fact that people differ in their physical and psychological, as well as social, characteristics and that these differences reflect their individual past experiences as well as their genetic makeups.

3. We must also develop a theory about the utiliza­tion of social psychology and institutionalize a set of ethical guidelines to enhance the likelihood that social psychology will be used for rather than against the well­being of mankind. Social psychology has little tradition of theorizing or of empirical research on the utilization of social psychology. Lewin's (1946) preliminary attempt to articulate the concept of "action research," and the implicit theory of utilization underlying this concept, have been neglected for so long that Nevitt Sanford (1970) entitled his Lewin Memorial Address, "Whatever Happened to Action Research?" But even more sadly, we have hardly yet begun to develop a conceptual schema to help us think about utilization so that, as a first step, we might be able to categorize meaningfully such things as: the kinds of activities social psychologists engage in which relate to utilization; the types of uti­lizers or client systems; the sorts of problems for which social psychologists are used and the problem stages in which utilization occurs; the nature of the relationship between the social psychologist and the potential uti­lizer; the kinds of difficulties, failures, and successes which occur during a utilization process; and the kinds of criteria and procedures which are used in evaluating a social psychological intervention. The object of such a conceptual schema would be to develop hypotheses about the conditions under which a given kind of social psychological intervention would lead to a given type of effect. For example, one might be interested in hy­pothesizing about the conditions under which outside consultants rather than consultants employed within an organization would be more or less likely to influence the functioning of the organization'S board of directors.

An attempt to develop a theory of utilization would serve an important "consciousness raising" function for social psychology practitioners. Many practitioners work

5

with unarticulated, implicit theories which, being im­plicit, are often difficult to revise in light of experience. An explicit articulation of one's assumptions opens them to examination and thus permits progress in one's con­ceptions as faulty ideas are weeded out by testing. Thus, improvement in the field of practice of social psychology will largely be conditional on the attempt to develop a systematic theory of practice.

Any theory of utilization will inevitably raise many fundamental ethical issues about the interrelations be­tween the social psychologist, his client system, and other relevant third parties. These ethical issues center about the question of under what conditions does one party have the right to influence another? For example, does the social psychologist have any moral responsibilities with respect to how his client uses the research infor­mation he (the social psychologist) has collected? Should he allow a client's public distortion of the research find­ings to go unchallenged? Should he permit the client to use the information to influence third parties (without the consent of the third parties), e.g., to influence voters, consumers, employees?

Many other questions can be raised. The answers are by no means obvious. Many other disciplines--includ­ing medicine, law, clinical psychology, and sociology­have faced similar questions and have discussed these issues extensively. Social psychology could undoubtedly profit from familiarity with the thinking and experience of other disciplines. This is not to say that the practice of social psychology should be as socially unresponsible as that of such professions as law and medicine. Rather, it is so say that if social psychology is to be a socially responsible profession, it must consider these issues thoroughly and develop ethical guidelines to serve as a normative framework for its practitioners.

4. We must also train social psychologists to use social psychological theory, findings, and techniques compe­tently and ethically as they deal with social problems. Earlier in this Introduction, it has been asserted that social problems do not shape themselves to fit academic disciplines and that social psychology as a discipline has its own unique perspective to contribute to applied work. In combination, these assertions--if true-pose a dilemma for training if we are to stimulate the effec­tive social utilization of social psychology. Is it necessary to train a "Renaissance" social psychologist who is well versed in physiology, economics, sociology, anthropol­ogy, learning theory, skills of public relations, journal­ism, lobbying, expediting, group leadership, and the like? But can such a Renaissance social psychologist be deeply knowledgeable in his own special area of com­petence? Is this dilemma of training-to train the gen-

6

eralist or the specialist-a false one? Do the social psy­chology practitioners practice primarily in interdis­ciplinary teams--but, if so, how are the disciplines forged into a unified relatedness to the problem? Or do practitioners of social psychology limit their practice to the kinds of problems that social psychology, by it­self, seems competent to handle? Or is the dilemma escapable by recognizing that there are needs for differ­ent types of roles for social psychologists--generalist as well as specialist roles? If so, one can ask more generally what are the other meaningful role distinctions in ap­plied social psychological work and how can one de­velop suitable training for them?

As an academic discipline, social psychology has em­phasized theory and research. How can students be trained to draw out the socially useful implications of the theorizing and research which they and others do? How, in actual instances, has social psychological theory or research been used in relation to practical problems? What are the difficulties that have been experienced in so doing? What are the differences in intellectual ap­proach when doing research that has been generated by a practical problem and research generated by a theoreti­cal issue? What are the differences in ways of thinking about a practical problem (e.g., in diagnosing it and developing proposed solutions) as contrasted to a theo­retical one? What personality dispositions and what in­tellectual skills favor effective work in each type of thinking?

As a practicing profession, social psychology has em­phasized training and social engineering in addition to research. What are the skills required in consultation and other forms of practice? What are the kinds of problems that typically arise and how are they dealt with successfully? What types of substantive knowledge seems particularly useful? How does the practitioner utilize the theorizing and research findings of social psychology in his work? How can these be made more useful to him? 0

References

Back, K. Beyond words. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972. Bonner, H. Group dynamics. New York: Ronald Press, 1959. Deutsch, M. The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destruc·

tive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 19711. Lewin, K. Action research and minority problems. Journal of

Social Issues, 1946, 2, lI4-64. Odiorne, G. S. The trouble with sensitivity training. Training Di­

rectors' Journal, 19611, 17, 9-20. Pages, M. Bethel culture, 1969: Impressions of an immigrant.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7, 267-284. Sanford, N. Whatever happened to action research? Journal of

Social Issues, 1970,26,11-211.

VOLUME 110, NUMBER I

Grants to Minority Scholars: A Three-Year Report

by Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.·

ONE OF THE MEANS the Council has long used to assist in the development of a field of research or a new group of researchers has been a program of fellowships or grants restricted to a special purpose or for a special group. The most recent such program, initiated in 1972, is the Grants to Minority Scholars for Research on Rac­ism and Other Social Factors in Mental Health. The program is administered by a committee of specialists in the fields of anthropology, developmental and social psychology, psychiatry, and sociology.l

The idea for the current program of grants came from Charles V. Willie, then a member of the Council's Board, who has long had a research interest both in race relations and in mental health, and from Philip B. Hallen, president of the Maurice Falk Medical Fund, which has had a long-time commitment to the improve­ment of health, particularly mental health.

The proposal for the program noted that in the field of mental health the question of race is often ignored. For example, in a widely used textbook in psychiatry,2 not one of the 53 chapters, which together contain 194 individual contributions, carries a title that even sug­gests a concern for race and/or racism. The index, 35 pages long, does not include the words "race," "racism," "black," "Negro," "colored," "prejudice," "stereotype," "discrimination," or "segregation." Such omissions appear to be characteristic of the mental health field in general, and to the extent that they are a consequence of lack of knowledge, it was the expecta­tion of the Council that the Grants to Minority Scholars program could help to provide new and significant data.

A secondary purpose of the program was to provide research support to minority scholars at an early stage in their postdoctoral careers. It was the hope of the program that it would offer these scholars an alternative

• The author is a historian who serves as staff for the Committee on Grants to Minority Scholars for Research on Racism and Other Social Factors in Mental Health.

1 The members of the committee are: Rodolfo Alvarez, University of California, Los Angeles; James P. Comer, Yale University; Bernard M. Kramer, University of Massachusetts; Cora Bagley Marrett, University of Wisconsin; Alfonso Ortiz, University of New Mexico; Marian Radke­Yarrow, National Institute of Mental Health; Lloyd H. RogIer, Ford­ham University; Charles V. Willie, Harvard University (chairman).

2 Alfred M. Freedman and Harold I. Kaplan, Comprehensive Text­book of Psychiatry (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1967).

MARCH 1976

to administrative opportunities and other demands and would encourage them to continue research careers.

The program proposal was refined in further discus­sion within the Council, a grant was provided by the Maurice Falk Medical Fund, and the first competition was held in 1972-73. In announcing the program, the committee stated that it was open especially but not limited to American Indians, Blacks, Chicanos, and Puerto Ricans. The committee also stated that special consideration would be given to research proposals from younger scholars. "Racism" and "mental health" were left undefined, so that applicants might have free rein in devising innovative research proposals. The maxi­mum award was set at $10,000.

In the first three years of the program, a total of 151 applications was received, and 26 awards were made (including two renewals) to 14 Blacks, five Chicanos, four Puerto Ricans, two Japanese-Americans, and one Korean-American; 18 were males, eight females. One grantee subseqently declined, making 23 the total num­ber of researchers supported.

At the end of this three-year period, the committee sponsored an informal conference to give grantees an opportunity to report on their research and to exchange findings with each other, the members of the committee, and other guests.s

Several common threads ran through many of the reports presented: how relatively little is yet known about the survival techniques of minority group mem­bers and the many different ways in which they respond

8 Those attending the conference were: grantees: Anita L. Alvarado. University of New Mexico; W. Curtis Banks, Princeton University; Oscar A. Barbarin, University of Maryland; Joyce Ladner Carrington. Hunter College; Leobardo F. Estrada, U.S. Department of Commerce; Anderson J. Franklin, City University of New York; John L. Gwaltney, Syracuse University; Yoon Hough Kim, East Carolina University; Maxie C. Maultsby, University of Kentucky; Isabelle N. Navar. Cali­fornia State College, Dominguez Hills; Ena V. Nuttal, Boston College; Sydney A. Reid, Florida A&:M University; Eduardo Seda Bonilla, Uni­versity of Puerto Rico; Blanca Silvestrini, University of Puerto Rico; Diana T. Slaughter, University of Chicago; Stanley Sue, University of Washington; William M. Womack, University of Washington; guests: Bertram S. Brown, National Institute of Mental Health; Joseph Gior­dano, Institute on Pluralism and Group Identity (New York); Philip B. Hallen, Maurice Falk Medical Fund (Pittsburgh); Mary S. Harper, National Institute of Mental Health; Morris Rosenberg, University of Maryland; M. Brewster Smith, University of California, Santa Cruz; James R. Sorenson, Boston University Medical Center; James E. Teele, Boston University; staff: Alvia Y. Branch, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.

7

to the racist attitudes and practices of the dominant majority; how much remains to be learned about the effects of racism on the mental health of minorities, and of the majority; and how essential it is to have research done in these vital areas because of the public policy decisions that must be made and are now being made on the basis of inadequate knowledge and inappropriate assumptions.

the U.S. on minority adaptations call into question the universal validity of much social science research. As one participant phrased the problem, "We may have been getting the ' right answers but to the wrong questions."

Implicit in the reports was the substantial benefit for social science research that can be derived from research on minorities. Just as comparative studies involving research by scholars in foreign areas often call into question some of the assumptions and findings of contemporary social science research in the United States, so too does research carried out by minorities in

At a dinner for the group, Bertram S. Brown, Philip B. Hallen, Charles V. Willie, and Bernard M. Kramer spoke informally and provided historical perspective to research on minorities, stressing how much remains to be learned. At the conclusion of the conference, the com­mittee began making plans to seek funding to continue the program and, in addition, to expand its activities by holding periodic small conferences to discuss methodo­logical questions and to define further substantive prob­lems in the general area of racism and other social factors in mental health. 0

New Publications

Irom Council activities anti committee projects

Mutual Images: Essays in American-Japa­nese Relations, edited by Akira Iriye. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, June 11-15, 1972. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. 304 pages. $15.00.

These essays explore Japanese images of America and Americans, and American images of Japan and the Japanese. As noted by Harold R. Isaacs, whose chapter concludes the volume, the images dis· cussed in the articles range from stereo· types, perceptions, attitudes, and opinions, on the one hand, to propaganda creations and even policy orientations, on the other. The conference from which the book reo sulted was a binational collaborative project of the Joint Committee on Japa­nese Studies and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Funds for the conference were provided to the Council by the Bureau of Educational and Cul­tural Affairs, Office of East Asian and Pacific Programs, U.S. Department of State.

The Japanese contributions to the vol­ume deal with images of America in 19th century Japan (Shunsuke Kamei, Uni­versity of Tokyo); with America as seen by Japanese travelers (Hidetoshi Kato, Gakushiiin University); with images of the U.S. as a hypothetical enemy (ShOichi Saeki, University of Tokyo); with Japa­nese images of war with the United States (Kimitada Miwa, Sophia University); and

8

with postwar Japanese education and the United States (Michio Nagai, Ministry of Education, and Takeo Nishijima, Asahi Newspaper).

Contributions by the American par­ticipants are equally diverse: Japan at American fairs from 1876-1904 (Neil Harris, University of Chicago); Japan as a competitor from 1895 to 1917 (Akira Iriye, University of Chicago); the postwar image of Japan in the American mind (Nathan Glazer, Harvard University); U.S. elite images of Japan in the postwar period (Priscilla A. Clapp, Brookings In­stitution, and Morton H. Halperin, Twentieth Century Fund); Japanese­Americans in the city of smog (Don Toshiaki Nakanishi, Harvard Univer­sity); and concluding remarks by Harold R. Isaacs, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Social Science Research Council: Publica­tions, 1929-1975. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1976.

The 762 publications produced under the sole or joint sponsorship of the Coun­cil or its committees since 1929 are listed in this bibliography. Included in the list are books resulting directly from Council activities and articles which appeared in books that were not themselves Council publications. Except when they were di­rectly commissioned by the Council, books or articles stemming from Council

grants or from fellowships to individual scholars are excluded.

Each item in the bibliography is listed in alphabetical order by senior author, within the year of its publication. That is, the publications are grouped by year and alphabetized by author's last name within each of those annual groups. The index of senior and junior authors ~nd the index of committees may be used to locate the work of particular individuals or works produced under the auspices of particular committees.

The bibliography was compiled by Karen Garner of the Council's staff from the list of works appearing in the "Pub­lications" section of the Council's Annual Reports. While the Annual Reports list about 700 journal articles that have re­sulted from Council activities, these arti­cles have been omitted from this bibli­ography. It is available from the Council upon request.

Other Recent Publications

Occasional Papers on Korea, No. 4, edited by James B. Palais and Margery D. Lang. A publication of the Joint Com­mittee on Korean Studies in cooperation with the Institute for Comparative and Foreign Area Studies, University of Wash­ington, Seattle, Washington, September 1975. 76 pages. No charge.

A Union List of Chinese Periodicals in Universities and Colleges in Taiwan, com­piled by William C. Ju. Prepared with the support of the Joint Committee on Sino-American Cooperation in the Hu­manities and Social Sciences. San Fran­cisco: Chinese Materials Center, 809 Tara­val Street, San Francisco, California, 94116, 1975. 580 pages. C. $8.00.

VOLUME 30, NUMBER I

Current Activities at the Council

Exploratory meeting on the study of giftedness

The Council, responding to an initia­tive from the American Psychological Foundation, has recently undertaken an examination of the status of theory and research on giftedness and the education of the gifted child_ Members of the staff met in January with a group of 10 social scientists in order to discuss issues con­sidered important to the future develop­ment of research in the field_ Much of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of the definition of giftedness, especially as it may apply to areas of competence which have not received as much systematic re­search attention as has general intellectual ability.

Areas of research emphasized by the participants in this first meeting included the study of giftedness as a function of the social context in which it occurs; the study of the acquisition and development of high levels of competency, and the rela­tionship of systems of instruction to these processes; the study of cultural and sub­cultural differences in the abilities con­sidered important enough to receive spe­cial attention; and the study of giftedness throughout the life cycle_ Consideration was also given to methodologies appropri­ate to the study of giftedness.

Additional meetings intended to sample the thinking of other groups and individ­uals identified with research in giftedness are being planned. The first of these will discuss school programs for the gifted_

SOCIAL INDICATORS IN THE FIELD OF SCIENCE

A Subcommittee on Science Indicators has been organized by the Council's Ad­visory and Planning Committee on Social Indicators. Its long-range objectives are to advance the quantitative description and analysis of science as a social phenomenon and to improve the empirical base for sci­en-:e policy. The members of the group represent a variety of disciplines, includ­ing economics, genetics, the history of sci­ence, physics, sociology, and statistics. It is chaired by a sociologist, Harriet Zuck­erman of Columbia University.

Formation of the subcommittee resulted from a conference in July 1974 held in connection with the publication of Sci­ence Indicators 1972, a report of the Na­tional Science Board (NSB). Cosponsored by the Council and the Center for Ad­vanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, the conference discussed questions of con­cept and measurement in the study of sci­ence in addition to examining the NSB's statistical report.

The subcommittee's charge, which is based on the conference discussions, is a broad one. Among the group's assign­ments are (1) the consideration of what is meant by the "health" of science; (2) the exploration of techniques for quantifying and measuring scientific activity; (3) the assessment of progress in measuring the cognitive and social structure of science;

MAllCH 1976

(4) the consideration of problems in mea­suring scientific productivity and in util­izing indicators for the development of science policy; (5) the exploration of ways to measure the linkages between science and other aspects of society.

In addition, the subcommittee has been given two specific assignments: to explore ways in which Science Indicators 1972 may be improved as a document describ­ing the state and progress of U.S. science; and to develop suggestions for the con­tents of a model chapter on science in publications of broader scope such as So­cial Indicators 1976.

Two current projects of the subcom­mittee are a book presenting papers of the July 1974 conference and a series of panels at professional society meetings. The book, to be titled Toward a Metric of Science, is slated for publication in 1976. The first panel, on problems in the use of science indicators, was offered at the February 1976 meetings of the Ameri­can Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston.

The members of the Subcommittee on Science Indicators are Harriet Zuckerman (chairman), Yehuda Elkana, Zvi Griliches, Gerald Holton, William H. Kruskal, Joshua Lederberg, Robert K. Merton, Derek de Solla Price, and Arnold Thack­ray; staff, Lawrence R. Carter.

Seminar on Social Security in Latin America

"Social Security in Latin America: Pres­sure Groups, Stratification, and Inequal­ity" was the topic of an Inter-American Research Training Seminar sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies and held in Mexico City on June 30-August 23, 1975. The seminar was held at and with the cooperation of the Inter­American Center for the Study of Social Security. The 18 student partieipants (listed in Items December 1975, page 75) and ten faculty members were from both Latin and North America. The directors of the seminar were James Malloy and Carmelo Mesa-Lago, both of the Univer­sity of Pittsburgh.

The seminar's curriculum included dis­cussions of concepts in the study of social welfare, social stratification, and social security, and lectures on the functioning of socia] security systems in Latin Ameri­can and other countries. As part of the seminar, participants developed research projects examining data on various na­tional social security systems. Both the formal instruction and the research proj­ects were designed to contrast the concept of social security as a protection for the neediest members of a society with the use of social security protection by privi­leged groups to extract concessions from their employers and the government. An­other problem examined was the extent to which social security systems in Latin America accentuate social stratification.

Members of the seminar's faculty were Luis Aparicio Valdez, University of the Pacific, Lima; Celso Barroso Leite, Minis­try of Planning and Social Welfare, Brazil; Julio Cotler, Institute of Social Research, National University of Mexico; Rodrigo Fournier Guevara, Inter-American Center for the Study of Social Security, Mexico; Beryl Frank, Organization of Ameri­can States, Washington, D.C.; Hernando Gomez-Buendia, "FedesarroIlo," Bogota; Lucila Leal de Araujo, Mexican Institute of Social Security; Jose Luis Reyna, EI Colegio de Mexico; Charles Parrish, Wayne State University; Milton I. Roe­mer, University of California, Los Angeles.

Albert O. Hirschman is chairman of the Joint Committee on Latin American Stud­ies. The other members are Guillermo Bonfil-Batalla, Francesca Cancian, Fer­nando Henrique Cardoso, Alejandro Fox­ley, Peter H. Smith, Alfred Stepan, and Herndn Vidal; staff, Louis Wolf Goodman and Patricia ~. Pessar.

9

THE STUDY OF INEQUALITY IN AFRICAN SOCIETIES

by Sara S. Berry •

This is a report on a Council seminar that brought together a group of scholars to assess recent developments in the study of inequality in Africa and to discuss both possibilities for further synthesis of exist­ing studies and the need for additional re­search. As the seminar demonstrated, there is no consensus among scholars either on the broad significance of inequality or on the best ways of analyzing its causes and consequences in Africa-although some common themes are emerging in the litera­ture.

H inequality is defined narrowly as the distribution of social resources or attri­butes--such as wealth, power, status, or prestige-among individuals or groups at a given point in time, then most scholars would agree that stable or changing pat­terns of distribution are symptoms of un­derlying social forces or relations which must be studied in conjunction with the distributional patterns themselves. Beyond that, however, scholars tend to disagree, on both ideological and disciplinary grounds, concerning the theoretical signifi­cance of inequality and the most fruitful methods for analyzing its causes and con­sequences.I

Theoretical considerations

In the last ten or fifteen years, debate on the theoretical significance of inequal­ity in Africa has revolved to a consider­able extent around differences between Marxist and non-Marxist approaches. Ac­cording to Marxist theory, as long as capital is individually rather than collec­tively owned, resources and power will be unequally distributed. The goal of Marx­ist oriented research, therefore, is not so much to provide an explanation of in-

• The author, who is an associate professor of economics at Indiana University (currently on leave at Boston University), organized and chaired the seminar, which was sponsored by the Joint Committee on African Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council. The seminar was held in New York on September 19-20,1975.

10

equality, as to increase understanding of the historical processes whereby people come together to struggle against their oppressors and to transform the relations of production on which social relations are based.

As a consequence, recent writing by Marxists has tended to challenge the plu­ralist models developed by social anthro­pologists in the late 1950s to explain pat­terns of social interaction and change in contemporary Africa. Instead, Marxist scholars argue that class analysis is not only applicable to but also necessary to understand patterns of social change in Africa, in pre-colonial as well as colonial and postcolonial times. They have also devoted considerable effort to tracing the consequences of an increasing dependence on the international capitalist system for the economic, social, and political struc­ture of African societies, and to explain­ing (or encouraging) the emergence of rev­olutionary movements in contemporary African nations.

In contrast, non-Marxists tend to view patterns of inequality that are associated with changing economic or political con­ditions in Africa as problems stemming from multiple causes and susceptible of reform without drastically altering exist­ing national or international frameworks. In response to the Marxist insistence that class conflict has been a central factor in

1 The participants in the seminar were Sara S. Berry, Indiana University; George .C. Bond, Teachers College, Columbia Univer­sity; Szymon Chodak, Concordia University; S~k~n~ Mody Cissoko, University of Dakar; Ronald Cohen, Northwestern University; Philip D. Curtin, The Johns Hopkins Uni­versity; James W. Fernandez, Princeton Uni· versity; Philip Foster, University of Chicago; Jean Herskovits, State University of New York, College at Purchase; Albert O. Hirsch­man, Institute for Advanced Study (Prince­ton, New Jersey); Allen Isaacman, University of Minnesota; Colin Leys, Queen's Univer­sity; Peter Lloyd, University of Sussex; Gid­eon-Cyrus M. Mutiso, University of Nairobi; David R. Smock, Ford Foundation; Edward W. Soja, University of California, Los An­geles; Aristide R. Zolberg, University of Chi­cago; staff, Martha A. Gephart, Louis Wolf Goodman, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr., Patricia R. Pessar, David L. Sills.

African economic and political history­at least since the 16th century-non­Marxist writers have argued that, while a class system may be "emerging" in con­temporary Africa, it is a relatively recent development and must be weighed against the continued importance of Africans' participation in cross-cutting social net­works and relationships, such as kinship, ethnic affiliation, or religious group.

Similarly, in the debate over the effects of economic growth on inequality and vice versa, non-Marxists tend to follow John Stuart Mill in arguing that there is no necessary connection between production and distribution. They argue that, insofar as incomes may be taxed or individual incentives influenced by government ac­tion, the income generated by individuals or institutions may be redistributed among members of a society in a number of ways. Accordingly, a central concern in this body of literature is how to modify or re­structure development strategy so as to achieve a more equitable pattern of eco­nomic development.

In addition to the differences between the two schools of thought, there are also important differences within them. Marx­ists, for example, disagree over the extent to which the capitalist mode of produc­tion has generated economic growth in Africa. They disagree, too, on the ques­tion of when and in what form the class struggle will lead to revolutionary change. Non-Marxists also debate the manner in which increasing economic inequality hinders or facilitates growth itself, both in terms of its effects on savings and in­centives to innovate and to invest and in terms of its wider consequences for the structure and stability of African political systems. Another issue debated by non­Marxists, stimulated by the recent revival of political economy in the field of devel­opment economics, is the extent to which state intervention in private or local eco­nomic activity is itself determined by eco­nomic forces. This question shares the spirit of many issues that are central to the Marxist approach.

As these examples suggest, some of the same kinds of questions are being asked by scholars of different ideological orien-

VOLUME 30, NUMBER. 1

eommittee report

Issues on the agenda of a conference planned

by the Joint Committee on African Studies

tations. Both Marxists and non-Marxists have, for example, asked whether and how the bases of inequality have changed over time in African societies and what this implies for the changing character of so­cial interaction or conflict. Specifically, a comparison of historical studies with re­'search on contemporary patterns of in­equality suggests the hypothesis that con­trol over land or other forms of property has superseded control over people as the primary source of both wealth and power -as Africa has become increasingly inte­grated into the contemporary interna­national economic and political system. Further investigation of this hypothesis could provide the basis for important syn­theses of research by historians and anthro­pologists on inequality in "traditional" African societies with work by economists and political scientists on the conse­quences of economic growth and political independence for contemporary Africa.

Scholars have also identified a number of redistributive or stratifying mecha­nisms which operate at many levels of so­ciety, ranging from household to nation. These include such diverse phenomena as education, law, government, policy, eth­nicity and cultural regionalism, language, rules of inheritance or land tenure, and political organization. Simply articulating the range of possibilities suggests the po­tential for interdisciplinary research, lead­ing to theoretical propositions that may be applied to a range of social problems.

Methodological approaches The debate over methodology concerns

the relative merits of studying inequality in African societies from within the per­ceptual framework of Africans themselves -or from without, by relying entirely on objectively observable indicators of be­havior. Some advocates of an objective methodology regard it as the only feasible approach for non-African scholars. Pro­ponents of a perceptually based method­ology argue, however, that responses to inequality can be meaningfully analyzed only when people's perceptions of their own social situation are taken into ac­count.

The advantages of the objective ap­proach are well-known. It is possible to

MAllCH 1976

define and measure units of observation with some precision and, through their use, to delineate empirical relationships with considerable clarity. There is evi­dently much that can stilI be learned about the sources and consequences of inequality through this method. For ex­ample, recent work on the relationships among socioeconomic background, aca­demic performance, and occupational ex­perience of African school leavers provides a fairly precise framework for evaluating various hypotheses about the effects of education as a stratifying device and for comparing African experience with that of otller areas. Objective studies could be use­ful, as well, in examining some of the con­sequences of regional inequality. More generally, analyzing the associations among various economic, social, and political in­dicators of inequality in Africa could help identify important mechanisms of redistribution and stratification by shed­ding light on the extent to which different types of inequality reinforce or counteract one another over time. A major obstacle to such research is the poor quality of much of the available quantitative data on economic and social variables in Afri­can societies. Research designed to yield better data on such basic indicators as income distribution is clearly of high priority.

The limitations of an objective ap­proach are also well-known. Any given pattern of association between measur­able indicators is usually susceptible of more than one explanation. To determine which explanation is the best or most likely source of accurate predictions, therefore, it may be necessary to draw on more "subjective" types of data.

The need for a synthesis of the two methodological approaches is particularly apparent in the study of social change. The absence of generally accepted theories of the effects of social forces on attitudes, or of perception on behavior, has hindered the development of socioeconomic models which incorporate both types of evidence.

Aggregate models which attempt to spell out the dynamics of social change-such as the classical and Marxist theories of economic evolution-often rest on sim­plistic or ethnocentric assumptions about

attitudes and values. On the other hand, the empiricist approach-which attempts to estimate statistical associations among both behavioral and attitudinal indicators -fails virtually by definition to reveal the dynamics of the hypothesized relation­ships.

Moving beyond dichotomous descrip­tions to formulate genuinely dynamic analyses which simultaneously incorporate or allow for cultural diversity remains a formidable challenge. As a step toward meeting it, several seminar participants suggested treating individuals or groups of actors, rather than attitudes or at­tributes, as units of analysis, and studying their responses to changing patterns of inequality. Criminal or extralegal behav­ior could also be examined as a heuristic device for identifying and understanding changing lines of social division and con­flict.

Plans for a research eonference A number of the interests shared by

scholars of different theoretical and meth­odological orientations point to directions for further research and analysis of in­equality in Africa. To pursue these possi­bilities, the committee is planning a re­search conference in the fall of 1976. Papers will be presented from different perspectives on a number of topics, in­cluding the changing bases of inequality in African societies; the sources, manifes­tations, and consequences of regional in­equality; inequality and the choice of development strategy; forms of inequality in rural Africa; the role of urban workers in contemporary Africa and the implica­tions of rural-urban migration for change and distribution; redistributive mecha­nisms; Africans' perceptions of inequality and their implications for social change; and various responses to inequality, in­cluding resistance or organized struggle against oppression by labor unions, mil­lenarian religious movements, and politi­cal protest movements.

The members of the Joint Committee on African Studies are Sara S. Berry and Aristide R . Zolberg (cochairmen), George C. Bond, Sekene Mody Cissoko, B. J. Dud­ley, James W. Fernandez, Jean Herskovits, and Edward W. Soja; staff, David L. Sills and Martha A. Gephart.

11

COUNCIL'S 1937 MONOGRAPHS ON THE 1930'S DEPRESSION ARE REISSUED

In 1956, the Social Science Research Council appointed a Committee on Social Aspects of the Depression; its assignment was to prepare a series of monographs designed to promote research on the ef­f,<cts of the depression. William F. Og­burn, who had initiated the project, was chairman of the committee; Samuel A. Stouffer, on leave from the University of Chicago. served as its staff. The other members were Shelby M. Harrison of the Russell Sage Foundation and Malcolm Willey of the University of Michigan.

Produced under Stouffer's immediate direction. 15 research memoranda were completed and published in one produc­tive year-1957. They dealt with crime, education. the family. internal migration. minority peoples. recreation. religion. rural life. consumption. health. reading habits. relief policies. and social work. Unavailable for over 35 years. the mono­graphs have now been reissued by the Arno Press. a New York Times Company which specializes in republishing out-of· print scholarly publications.

A Foreword to the monographs written by the committee in 1937 explains the background and objectives of the series. The committee wrote: "The depression of the early 1930's was like the explosion of a bomb dropped in the midst of society. All the major social institutions. such as the government. family. church, and school. obviously were profoundly affected and the repercussions were so far reaching that scarcely any type of human activity was untouched. The facts about the im· pact of the depression on social life. how-

ever. have been only partially recorded. It would be valuable to have assembled the vast record of influence of this economic depression on society. Such a record would constitute an especially important prepa­ration for meeting the shock of the next depression. if and when it comes. Theories must be discussed and explored now, if much of the inff>rmation to test them is not to be lost amid ephemeral sources."

The following monographs. averaging about 150 pages in length. are included in the series:

Stuart F. Chapin and Stuart A. Queen. Research Memorandum on Social Work in the Depression

Selwyn D. Collins and Clark Tibbitts (with the ~ssistance of Arch B. Clark and Eleanor L. Richie). Research M emoran­dum on Social Aspects of Health in the Depression

The Educational Policies Commission, Re­search Memorandum on Education in the Depression

Samuel C. Kincheloe, Research Memoran· dum on Religion in the Depression

Dwight Sanderson, Research M emoran­dum on Rural Life in the Depression

Thorsten Sellin. Research Memorandum on Crime in the Depression Jesse F. Steiner. Research Memorandum on Recreation in the Depression Samuel A. Stouffer and Paul F. Lazarsfeld (with the assistance of A. J. Jaffe). Re­search Memorandum on the Family in the Depression

Warren S. Thompson, Research Memo­randum on Internal Migration in the Depression

Roland S. Vaile (with the assistance of Helen G. Canoyer), Research Memoran­dum on Social Aspects of Consumption in the Depression Douglas Waples. Research Memorandum on Social Aspects of Reading in the De­pression

Clyde R. White and Mary K. White, Re­search Memorandum on Social Aspects of Relief Policies in the Depression

Donald Young, Research Memorandum on Minority Peoples in the Depression

The books may be ordered from the Arno Press, 350 Madison Avenue, New York. New York 10017; the price is $10 per volume.

Senior Fulbright-Hays Awards Open for 1977-78

More than 500 awards for university lecturing and postdoctoral research in over 75 countries will be made to Americans for the academic year 1977-78, the thirti­eth year of the senior Fulbright-Hays pro­gram. Further information is available from the Council for International Ex­change of Scholars (CIES) at its new ad­dress: Eleven Dupont Circle, Washington, D. C. 20056.

Requests for information should indi­cate field of specialization. preferred coun­tries or geographic areas, and probable dates of availability. To be eligible. appli­cants must have a doctorate or college teaching experience and be citizens of the United States. Those who wish to indi­cate a continuing interest in Fulbright­Hays and other educational programs may complete a two-page form for the Register of Scholars maintained by the CIES which will be available in April 1976.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

605 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

Incorporated in the State of Illinois, Decembn 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social ft:ieftCes

Directors, 1976: BRIAN J . L. BEIUlY, PETER B. DEWS. ROBEilT EISNEIl, LEON D. EpSTEIN. JACOB J. FELDMAN. CLIFFORD GEERTZ. PHILIP W. JACKSON.

HAROLD H. KELLEY. LAWRENCE R. KLEIN, FRANKLIN W. KNIGHT, WILUAM H . KRUSKAL. OTTo N. LARSEN. CHARLES E. LINDBLOM. GARDNER LINDZEY.

LEON LIPSON. CORA BAGLEY MARRETT. HERBERT MCCLOSKY, SALLY FALK MOORE. MURRAY G. MURPHEY. PAUL H. MUSSEN, GUY H. ORCtrrT, JOHN

W. PRATI. ALICE S. ROSSI. PEGGY R. SANDAY, ELEANOR BEilNEilT SHELDON. JANET T. SPENCE. ALBEilT J. STUNKARD. JOHN M. THOMPSON, HAIUUET ZUCKERMAN

Officers and Staff: ELEANOR BEJlNEilT SHELDON. President; DAVID JENNESS, DAVID L. SILLS. Executive Associates; RONALD P. ABELES. ALVIA Y. BRANCH,

LAWRENCE R. CARTEil. JUDITH FIELD. ROBEilT A. GATES. MARTHA A. GEPHART, LouIS WOLF GOODMAN. PATRICK G. MADDOX, ROBEilTA B. MILl.ER.

ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR •• ROBEIlT PARKE. PATRICIA R. PESSAR. SUSAN J. PHARR. PETEIl B . READ. DAVID SEIDMAN, DAVID L. SZANTON, ROXANN

A . VAN DUSEN; MARTHA W. FORMAN, Assistant Treasurer, CATHEIlINE V. RONNAN. Financial Secretary; NANCY L. CARMICHAEL, Librarian

12