Categories
Economic History Economists

Portrait of Prof. Ernst Louis Étienne Laspeyres of Price Index-Number Fame

It just didn’t seem fair, posting a portrait of Paasche without giving his famous price index-number counterpart Laspeyres the benefit of a quick internet search. Sure enough, two portraits of the good Gießen professor can be found at the link to the Gießen University Archive given below.

Ernst Louis Étienne Laspeyres, a.k.a. Ernst Ludwig Stephan Laspeyres, was born November 28, 1834 in Halle and died August 4, 1913 in Gießen, Germany.

Image Source: Universitätsarchiv, Universität Gießen

P.S. from the same archive, a picture of his grave.

Professorengräber auf dem Alten Friedhof in Gießen

Categories
Curriculum Harvard

Harvard. Stricter division between undergraduate and graduate courses. Ca. 1910-11

A copy of this report written by economics professors Charles J. Bullock and Thomas N. Carver is found in the papers of Harvard President Abbott Lawrence Lowell. The report itself is undated but a comparison with the course catalogues for the period 1909-1914 shows almost a perfect fit for the course staffing in the academic year 1910-11.

Harvard-wide courses were divided into three groups:

Courses primarily for Undergraduates (lower group);
Courses for Undergraduates and Graduates (middle group);
Courses primarily for Graduates (upper group).

In the 1912-13 Announcements of the Courses of Instruction, the recommendations of the committee were implemented to limit undergraduate access to the upper group of courses: only after a “special vote of the Department” or for undergraduate senior “candidates for the degree with distinction” would undergraduate students be admitted to courses designated “primarily for Graduates”. The new course numbering beginning with 1912-13 does not match the ordering of courses given in the report.

Handwritten names added to the Report have been placed within square brackets “[…]”.

_________________________________

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE UPON COURSES OF INSTRUCTION

The Committee appointed at the last meeting of the Department to consider the courses of instruction in the Department of Economics, submits the following preliminary report as a basis for discussion at the next meeting of the Department:

The Committee recommends in the first place that there shall be hereafter a complete separation of the graduate and undergraduate courses. it seems to us that this can be done by adopting the principle that in undergraduate courses the work of the students is to be carefully supervised, and that in the graduate courses the students are to be thrown wholly upon their own resources and be tested only by the final examinations. This plan will enable the Department to concentrate its elementary instruction upon a smaller number of courses specially adapted to the needs of undergraduates, and will free the members from work of supervision in the courses offered for graduates.

It will not be inconsistent with this plan of separating graduate from undergraduate work to admit to the graduate courses undergraduates who are candidates for honors; and your Committee recommends that if the separation be effected this privilege be offered to undergraduates. The Department can safely assume that a candidate for honors in Economics can be trusted to pursue an advanced course without supervision, and can be treated precisely like a graduate student. Such an arrangement will prevent the proposed plan from reducing the opportunities offered to men of exceptional capacity and interest in economic study.

Nor will it be inconsistent with the plan to admit to the undergraduate courses graduate students whose previous training in economics has been deficient, provided such students be placed upon a somewhat different footing from undergraduates. Graduate students in the courses designed for undergraduates should not be subject to supervision, and should not be required to attend the weekly conferences or to take the weekly or fortnightly examinations. On the other hand they should be required to do somewhat more work than is expected from undergraduates; and this requirement might well take the form of a provision that such graduate students be required to do additional reading upon which one or two special questions will be set in the final examination. it would be possible also in the larger courses, where the instructor meets the class but twice a week, for him to have a fortnightly conference for the graduate students. This conference may be devoted to the discussion of the assigned reading. (Professor Carver suggests that this requirement might be made for candidates for the A. M. degree and not for candidates for the Ph. D. degree.)

If the separation of courses is effected, the Committee believes it desirable that hereafter the undergraduate courses should be considered a Department matter rather than a matter wholly under the control of the individual instructors. It seems to us that the Department should, in a general way, determine the scope and methods of the instruction offered, as well as the kind of examinations to be given in these courses. We also believe that there should be regular inspection of the work done in these courses. Inspection of the examination books is already provided for, but not carried out. In addition to this, we believe it is worth while for the Department to consider the desirability of securing inspection of the undergraduate courses by some competent person outside the Department.

There are two other matters which the Committee may later bring to the attention of the Department, but which need not be considered in connection with the proposed plan.

The first is the proposal to have instructors adopt hereafter a uniform system of lecture notes by which, if the Department ever cares to do so, it will be possible to make available to present and future members of the Department the notes used by instructors in giving the several courses. In this way the embers of the Department will gradually pool their experience; and whenever changes occur in the instructors conducting courses new men will have the benefit of the experience of their predecessors. Such a system would require not only uniform methods of keeping lecture notes, but uniform filing cards and filing cases.

The other matter is the question of whether the members of the Department can do more than is done at present in the direction of bringing students into direct contact with original sources of information. Something has already been done by books like Professor Dunbar’s Laws relating to Currency and Finance, and by Professor Ripley’s series of Selections and Documents. The Committee may desire later to raise the question whether, at least in our undergraduate courses, more systematic effort may not be made in this direction,

The Committee has examined our present list of courses with a view to determining which were best suited to the needs of undergraduates, and recommends that the following courses be hereafter offered in the undergraduate group:

  1. Economics I, as at present [Prof. Taussig.]
  2. The Economic History of England and the United States (the present Courses 6a and 6b) [Prof. Gay.]
  3. Money, Banking and Crises (the present Course 8) [Drs. Day & Huse]
  4. Public Finance (the present Courses 7a and 7b) [Prof. Bullock.]
  5. The Labor Problem and Socialism (the present Courses 9a and 14b) [Profs. Ripley & Carver.]
  6. Corporations and Railway Transportation (the present Courses 9b and 5) [Prof. Ripley.]
  7. Sociology (the present Course 3) [Prof Carver.]
  8. Accounting (the present Course 18) [Prof. Cole.]
  9. A course in Economic Theory (One suggestion is that this be a course in Classical English Economics. Professor Carver suggests a course in the Distribution of Wealth. The Committee confines itself to recommending one advanced course in Economic Theory for undergraduates. (the present Course 2) [Prof. Taussig.]

(Professor Carver would prefer to add to this list Economics 28, but the Committee merely raises this question, and makes no recommendation upon the point.)

With these courses placed in the undergraduate group, there would remain in our present offering a substantial amount of graduate instruction. The Committee suggests, but without making a definite recommendation, the following:

  1. Theories of Value and Distribution: with consideration of methods of economic investigation. Carver. (A consolidation of Courses 13 and 14a)
  2. Ripley.
  3. History of Economic Theory. Bullock. (In place of the one course, there could be offered two courses given in alternate years: the first covering the history of economics up to 1776; the other covering the period from 1776 to 1848, or even some later date.)
  4. French and German Economics. Gay. (The present Economics 22)
  5. Mediaeval Economic History. Gray. (The present Economics 10)
  6. Modern Economic History. Gay. (The present Economics 11)
  7. Economic History of Antiquity. Ferguson. (The present Economics 26) The committee recommends, however, that unless this course can be given next year, it shall be dropped from the Catalog.
  8. Economics of Agriculture. Carver. (The present economics 23, unless this be included in the list of courses offered undergraduates)
  9. Financial Aspects of Combinations. Dewing. (The present Economics 30)
  10. Bullock. (The present economics 16)
  11. Research Courses (20a, b, c, d, e ,f, g, h)

In addition to these courses, it may be possible to provide two or three new courses by members of our present staff, if additional assistants can be secured in the group of courses offered to undergraduates. Professor Taussig has expressed a desire sometime to undertake a course in International Trade. Then if the undergraduate courses in the Labor Problem and Socialism could be given by a new instructor, Professor Ripley would be free to offer another advanced course. But this matter, however, like some others, is obviously one that cannot be settled at the present time; and the Committee mentions it merely to point out the possibilities of its proposed plan.

Signed,

Charles J. Bullock
T. N. Carver

Source: Harvard University Archives. President Lowell’s Papers, 1909-1914, Box 15, Folder 410.

Image Source:  Harvard Class Album 1915.

Categories
ERVM Irwin Collier

Six Months of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror

Thus far I have managed to blog 140 artifacts from the history of economics over the past six months. A word of thanks again to the kind folks at the Institute for New Economic Thinking who provided me the initial funds to accumulate a wonderful stock of material bearing on academic economics in the United States. 

Let me encourage all  regular visitors to this blog to add comments to the artifacts whenever they can share context, perspective and useful pointers for the rest of us.

See you next posting,

Irwin (Bud) Collier

 

Categories
Courses Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. The Corporation and its Regulation. Course Syllabus. Crum, Mason & Chamberlin, 1934

The division of labor among the three professors jointly responsible for this course appears to be according to topic. The accounting business clearly fell to Crum.  Why Mason is listed ahead of Chamberlin (seniority? or order of topic within the course) is not explicit. For now I’ll just conjecture that Mason taught the Dewing (i.e. Finance) part of the course and Chamberlin then taught the Berle and Means material. The enrollment numbers indicate it was a popular course (maybe as pre-law or pre-MBA preparation for economics majors?).

More recently added:  the final examination questions for the course.

______________________________

[From the Course Catalogue]

Economics 4a 1hf. The Corporation and its Regulation

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Professor Crum, Associate Professor Mason, and Associate Professor Chamberlin.

 

Source: Announcement of the Courses of Instruction Offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1934—35 (second edition). Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. 31, No. 38 (September 20, 1934), p.126.

______________________________

[Course Enrollment]

4a 1hf. Professor Crum, Associate Professors Mason and Chamberlin.—The Corporation and its Regulation.

161 Total: 1 Graduate, 52 Seniors, 86 Juniors, 11 Sophomores, 11 Others.

Source: Harvard University Archives, Report of the President of Harvard College and the departments for 1934-35, p. 81.

______________________________

 

Economics 4a
The Corporation and its Regulation

Reading Assignments, 19341935

BOOKS:

S. Baldwin, Modern Political Institutions
Paton and Stevenson, Accounting Principles
A. S. Dewing, Financial Policy of Corporations (1934 edition) [link to 1926 edition]
Berle and Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property
Bonbright and Means, The Holding Company
Seager and Gulick, Trust and Corporation Problems
J. B. Hubbard, ed., Current Economic Policies

* * * * * * *

October 1-6: Baldwin, Ch. 6.
October 8-13: Paton and Stevenson, pp. 1-207 (Omit Ch. 5)
October 15-20: Paton and Stevenson, Ch. 22.
October 22-17: Dewing, Book IV, Chs. 7, 8,9.
October 29-November 3: Dewing, Book III, Chs. 3, 4.
November 5-10: Dewing, Book I, Chs. 3, 4, 5.
November 12-17: Dewing, Book V, Ch. 3 and pp. 730-736.
November 19-24: Berle and Means, Book II, Chs. 1, 2, 3.
November 26-December 1 Berle and Means, Book II, Chs. 5-8, Book IV (complete).
December 3-8: Bonbright and Means, Chs. 1, 2, 3, 6 (omit Supplment), 13.
December 10-15: Berle and Means, Book III (complete).
Hubbard, pp. 575-610.
December 17-22: Seager and Gulick, Chs. 25, 27.
Hubbard, pp. 110-126.

* * *  * * * *

Reading Period: Dewing, Book V, Chs. 9, 11, 12; Book VI, Ch. 5.
Berle and Means, Book I, Chs. 3, 4.
Hubbard, pp. 610-636.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC8522.2.1). Box 2, Folder “1934-1935”.

Image Source: Crum, Mason and Chamberlin from Harvard Album 1934.

Categories
Economists ERVM

Portrait of Hermann Paasche of index number fame, 1907

Until I myself became a blogmeister, I had been blissfully unaware of the backside design choices involved in blogmeistering. Indeed there awaited an entirely new set of meanings associated with words long comfortable in my pre-blog vocabulary such as “theme”. When you set up a blog, you must first enter a virtual showroom of themes, a collection of templates that package color schemes, page widgets, plugins etc for you, the blogmeister, to fill with your postings. Being a rookie in this league, I chose what I expected would be a keep-it-simple-stupid (KISS) theme that would allow me to concentrate on providing text content. Soon I realized that having a nice graphic for each posting provides welcome visual relief and, I hoped, a memory tag to make the posting-visitor bond strong enough to outlast the session. 

Because there are so many more good (and not-so-good) economists than great (and truly important wrong) economic ideas, a serious history of economics soon falls victim to the curse of dimensionality. Portraits help me keep the names straight and to never forget that economists are indeed economics made flesh and they too were once young. Dealing primarily with defunct academic scribblers necessarily implies that most of the photographs are monochromatic which turns out to be a feature since black-and-white images fit quite well into the black-and-white-with-red-accents theme chosen for Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. Given my ambition to be blogger of (mostly) new content, I figured a little search for less-iconic images and especially those close in time to the content of my postings would result in higher value-added.

One truly great source of historical images is the U.S. Library of Congress.  When I searched for “economists”, the 96th image was that below for Dr. Paasche. In my earlier research life I was deeply into economic index numbers (e.g. my 1999 comment  (beginning page 87) that follows a NBER chapter about the theory of multilateral index numbers written by Erwin Diewert and  “The DM and the Ossi Consumer: Price Indexes During Transition” published in 2012) so I was absolutely delighted to find myself looking Hermann Paasche straight in the eye for the first time. 

1907_PaascheHermann_LOC

The Hamburg photography studio of Emilie Bieber (1810-1884) was taken over by her nephew Leonard Berlin (1841-1931) in 1872.  In 1890 he opened the “E. Bieber” photography studio in Berlin. In 1897 Leonard began to go by the name Leonard Berlin-Bieber.  In that year he was also awarded the title “Photographer of the Court” by King Wilhelm II of Prussia. Having a photo portrait done at the Bieber studio was something that one just had to do. In 1911 Leonard Berlin-Bieber closed the Berlin studio and his son Emil Bieber took over the business now concentrated in Hamburg. In 1938 Emil was forced to sell the business and the family emigrated first to England then to South Africa. This particular image comes from the George Grantham Bain Collection (a collection of photographic files of an early U.S. news picture agency).

The University of Rostock where Hermann Paasche was a professor has a website Catalogus Professorum Rostochiensium where you can find the following outline of his career. At the bottom is noted “died early April 1925 in Detroit while travelling in North America.”

Image Source: Library of Congress website.

Categories
Courses Minnesota Syllabus

Minnesota. Fiscal Policy Reading List. Walter Heller, 1950

This course reading list from the Spring quarter of 1950 at the University of Minnesota was enclosed with a thank-you letter dated April 27, 1950 from Walter W. Heller to Milton Friedman thanking him for having sent three reprints of “A Monetary and Fiscal Framework for Economic Stability” (AER, 1948) that Heller had included in the required readings for his Minnesota course.

A brief biography of Walter Heller is provided in the Finding Aid for his papers at the University of Minnesota Archives and here a memoir of a former student.

________________________________

University of Minnesota
School of Business Administration

Economics 195Fiscal Policy
(Spring, 1950)

Abbreviations Textbooks
KKK K.K. Kurihara, Monetary Theory and Public Policy, New York, W. W. Norton, 1940.
IEPP Metzler, et al, Income, Employment, and Public Policy, New York, W. W. Norton, 1948.
Douglas Report Subcommittee on Monetary, Credit and Fiscal Policies of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Economic Report, Monetary, Credit, and Fiscal Policies (Sen. Doc. No. 129, 81st Cong., 2nd Session)
PFFE Musgrave et al, Public Finance and Full Employment, Fed. Res. Bd. Postwar Economic Studies, No. 3, December 1945.
 

Additional References

BCT American Economic Association, Readings in Business Cycle Theory.
SCE American Economic Association, A Survey of Contemporary Economics.
B&B Bowman and Bach, Economic Analysis and Public Policy.
H-1 Hansen, Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles.
H-2 Hansen, Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy
NE Harris et al, The New Economics.
Hart Hart, Money, Debt, and Economic Activity.
“Green Book” Joint Committee on Economic Report, Monetary, Credit and Fiscal Policies. [Possibly this set of hearings is intended]
EC Lerner, Economics of Control.
Murphy Murphy, The National Debt in War and Transition.
S-1 Simons, Federal Tax Reform.
S-2 Simons, Economic Policy for a Free Society.
FAP Twentieth Century Fund, Financing American Prosperity.
AER American Economic Review
CED Committee for Economic Development.

Assignments (Do not expect the assignments to fit perfectly into the course outline; you will find that many fit only partially or obliquely and that there is much overlap)
Asterisk (*) means assigned; others are suggested.

 

I. BACKGROUND AND REVIEW

A. Monetary Policy and Concepts

1.* B&B, Ch. 11 (Ch. 40 also suggested)

2.* KKK, pp. 3-39

B. Public Finance

1.* B&B, Book VI (for quick review)

2. H-1, Part Two

C. Theory of Employment, Income, and Interest

1.* KKK, Part II (But beware of the dogma!)

D. Business Cycles

1.* B&B, Ch. 14 (for review, as needed)

2. Hart, Part III

II. NATURE AND OBJECTIVES OF FISCAL POLICY

1*. Gerhard Colm, “Fiscal Policy” (NE, Ch. 34)

2.* Alvin Hansen, “Keynes on Economic Policy” (NE, Ch. 16)

3.* Hart, Ch. 19

4.* Everett Hagen, “Direct v. Fiscal-Monetary Controls: A Critique” (Mimeograph- to be published in A. E.A. Proceedings, May, 1950)

5.* Smithies, “Federal Budgeting and Fiscal Policy”, (SCE, pp. 174-192)

6.* Wright, “Income Redistribution Reconsidered”, IEPP

7. Vickrey, “Limitations to Keynesian Economics”, Social Research, December, 1948

8. United Nations, National and International Measures for Full Employment, 1949

9. Meade, Planning and the Price Mechanism, The MacMillan Co., 1948

10. “The Problem of Full Employment”, by Hart, Sweezy, et al, AER, Proceedings issue, May, 1946, pp. 280-335.

III. ECONOMIC REQUISITES FOR FULLEMPLOYMENT EQUILIBRIUM

A. Introduction

1. G. L. Bach, “Economic Requisites for Economic Stability” (to be published in AEA Proceedings, May, 1950)

B. The Income Claims Requirement (and cost-price problems)

1. Walter Morton, “Trade Unionism, Full Employment, and Inflation”, A.E.R., March, 1950

2.* FAP: Ellis, pp. 176-198; Hansen, pp. 256-260; Machlup, pp. 426-440; 460-466 (Suggested also: Clark, pp. 97-125; Williams, pp. 367-373)

C. The Adequate Money Demand Requirement

1. The general problem

a. Samuelson, “The Simple Mathematics of Income Determination”, IEPP

b. Smithies, “Effective Demand and Employment”, NE

c.* Review Kurihara assignment

2. The consumption function

a.* Duesenberry, “Income-Consumption Relations”, IEPP

b. Lubell, “Effects of Redistribution of Income on Consumers’ Expenditures”, AER, December, 1947

3. Investment

a.* Domar, “Investment, Losses, and Monopolies”, IEPP

b.* Higgins, “Concepts and Criteria of Secular Stagnation”, IEPP

c.* Sweezy, “Declining Investment Opportunity”, Ch. 32, NE

d. Higgins, “The Concept of Secular Stagnation”, AER, March, 1950

e. Hansen, H-1, Chs. 16 and 17

f. Wright, “The Great Guessing Game”, Review Econ. Statistics, February, 1946

IV. LONGRUN FISCAL POLICY

A. General

1. Bishop, “Alternative Expansionist Fiscal Policies: A Diagrammatic Analysis”, IEPP

2.* Smithies, SCE, pp. 192-195

3.* Hansen, H-2, Ch. 13

4.* Williams, “Deficit Spending”, BCT, Ch. 13

5.* Musgrave, “Fiscal Policy, Stability and Full Employment”, PFFE

B. Taxation

1.* Smithies, SCE, pp. 195-200

2.* Musgrave, “Federal Tax Reform”, PFFE

3.* Simons, S-1, Ch. 2

4. Hansen, H-1, Ch. 19

C. Expenditure Policy

1. Higgins, Ch. 35, NE

2.* Smithies, SCE, pp. 200-204

V. DEBT MANAGEMENT

1.* Domar, “Public Debt and National Income”, PFFE

2.* Wallich, “Public Debt and Income Flow”, PFFE

3. Lerner, “The Burden of the National Debt”, IEPP

4.* Simons, “On Debt Policy”, S-2

VI. ANTICYCLICAL FISCAL POLICY

A. Political and Administrative Requisites for (and Barriers to) Effective Fiscal Policy

1. Roy Blough, “Political and Administrative Requisites for Achieving Economic Stability”, to be published in Proceedings issue of AER, May, 1950

2.* Alexander, “Opposition to Deficit Spending”, IEPP

B. General

1. Fellner, “Employment Theory and Business Cycles”, SCE

2.* Smithies, SCE, pp. 204-209

3.* Lerner, EC, Ch. 24

C. Automatic Devices

1.* Hart, Chs. 21 and 22

2.* Friedman, “A Monetary and Fiscal Framework for Greater Economic Stability,” AER, Je., 1948

2a. “Comment” on above, and “Rejoinder”, AER, Sept., 1949

3. CED Taxes and the Budget (Policy Statement), 1947, pp. 10-34

D. Discretionary Policy

1.* Hart, Chs. 23 and 24

2.* Hansen, H-2, Ch. 12

3.* Margolis, “Public Works and Economic Instability”, JPE, August, 1949

E. State and Local Finance

1. Mitchell, Litterer, and Domar, “State and Local Finance”, PFFE

VII. SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF FISCAL POLICY

A. The Wartime Case

1.* Murphy, Chs. 5, 6, 7, 18, 19

2. Keynes, How to Pay for the War, Macmillan, London, 1940

B. A WarDevastated Economy

1.* Heller, “The Role of Fiscal-Monetary Policy in German Economic Recovery”, AER, Proceedings issue, May, 1950 (also mimeographs on reserve)

C. The U.S. Economy in Peacetime (?)

1.* Douglas Report, pp. 1-32

2.* The Green Book, pp. 395-424 (skim and scan)

3. CED. Monetary and Fiscal Policy for Greater Economic Stability, (Policy Statement), 1948

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 28, Folder 5 (Correspondence: Heller, Walter W.).

Categories
Economists Michigan

Michigan. Organization of Behavioral Sciences. Report to Ford Foundation, 1954

Here an except from the University of Michigan’s Survey of the behavioral sciences, the fourth university of five participating in the Ford Foundation Project of 1953-54 on the behavioral sciences. Harvard, Chicago, Stanford and Michigan’s reports are in the public domain and available at hathitrust.org. I have been unable to locate the University of North Carolina’s report but perhaps some kind visitor to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror (attention colleagues at Duke!) can track that one down for us sometime. These reports provide a very nice set of artifact-bookends for my project on graduate economics education in the United States that I truncate around mid-twentieth century. Link to Michigan’s Economics-Pantheon here.

___________________________________

[p. 11]

THE ORGANIZATION OF
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

At the University of Michigan there is no general administration of Behavioral Science or of Social Science as such. The teaching activities of the University are organized in a College of Literature Science and the Arts, a Graduate School, and 13 professional schools. Research and special services are carried on in each of the teaching units, and also in special bureaus, institutes and centers which are authorized for particular continuing operations and which, depending on their scope, may report to a department, a school, or to the central university administration.

Since 1934 there has been a Division of the Social Sciences1, comprised of representatives from the relevant departments and schools. Its function is primarily advisory and it has no budget or administrative responsibility. The General Committee of the Division nominates a Research Committee which advises the Board of the Graduate School on allocations for research projects in the field of social science.

The administrative units concerned with the Behavioral Sciences are described in the following sections:

1) Departments of the College of Literature, Science and the Arts
2) Professional Schools
3) Institutes and Research Agencies.

[p. 12]

DEPARTMENTS OF THE COLLEGE
OF LITERATURE, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS
 

Anthropology

The present organization of the Department of Anthropology, in a sense a transitional one, involves a staff of 15 members of whom five hold full-time teaching appointments in the Department of Anthropology and five hold full-time appointments in the Museum of Anthropology. Of the other five, two hold joint appointments with the Department of Sociology, one with the Department of Near Eastern Studies, one with the Institute of Human Biology, and one with the English Department. These complicated administrative arrangements are the result of a long-standing and well established tradition of separation of Museum and Department, and a general overlap of research interests with other disciplines.

In 1939 the Department had a staff of three men, one of whom devoted most of his time to his duties as Director of the Museum of Anthropology and of the University Museums, while the others taught full-time. It offered an undergraduate major and an A. M. degree. Museum staff members, not including the Museum Director, were three men who devoted themselves to research and curatorial work, their chief contact with students being consultation on research topics involving Museum collections. Owing to war absences in 1944-45, the Museum staff members were called upon to participate in the regular teaching program of the Department, and shortly thereafter this practice was formalized by granting them professorial titles, although no change was made in budgetary arrangements. This growth of departmental resources made possible a considerably expanded curriculum, and it was decided to press for further expansion of staff with a view to establishing a full-fledged doctoral program. This goal was achieved in 1948.

Joint appointments, particularly in the specialized fields of social organization, culture and personality, and linguistics, materially aided the rapid staff expansion. A fairly well rounded representation of the various areas of special interest within anthropology has resulted, although the staff and administrative structure are by no means thought to have attained any final or ideal form. The development of smoothly functioning working arrangements among the units involved in anthropology is an important problem; presumably these arrangements will evolve [p. 13] in response to problem situations as they arise. No difficulties have as yet come up which are insoluble under the present organization.

Research in anthropology at Michigan reflects several currents of influence. Traditional, individual research in descriptive ethnography and culture theory is well represented by the work of White and Titiev, and in prehistoric archaeology by the Museum staff; Beardsley, Schorger, and others participate in area interdisciplinary team research through such programs as those of the Center for Japanese Studies and the Department of Near Eastern Studies; and topical research interest in the problems of kinship and social organization is represented by Aberle and Miner. There does not appear to be any strong “official” emphasis along any of these lines from the standpoint of the insider, but the outside image of Michigan research is probably still influenced by the pre-expansion situation when the archaeological work of the relatively large Museum staff was especially visible.

No well defined trend is now evident, and it seems likely that Michigan anthropological research will be as difficult to characterize sharply in ten years as it is now. Presumably the archaeological research collections of the Museum will continue to be exploited, the dominant interest of the Michigan physical anthropologists in population genetics will persist, and the various area programs will continue to operate.

 

Economics

The Department of Economics has been in the forefront of the post war development of economics in two principal and interrelated directions, increased attention to economics as part of the study of human behavior as a whole, and greater emphasis on quantitative economics and econometrics.

Five members of its staff of 17 hold joint appointments with other departments and institutes, and 10 teaching fellows and predoctoral instructors are engaged in elementary course teaching.

Student enrollment consists of about 127 undergraduate concentrates and 62 graduate students of whom about two-thirds are working at the doctoral level.

The fields of economics in which research is being carried on are:

Economic Theory: Ackley, Boulding, Dickinson, Katona, Morgan, Palmer, Suits
[p. 14]
Money and Banking: Musgrave, Watkins
Labor: Haber, Levinson
International Economics: Remer, Stolper
Public Control and Regulation: Peterson, Sharfman
Public Finance: Ford, Musgrave
Quantitative Economics, Statistics and Research Methods: Katona, Klein, Suits
Economic History: Dickinson
Interdepartmental, Interdisciplinary, Area Programs, etc.: Ackley, Boulding, Remer, Stolper, Suits

The trend at Michigan to relate the study of economics to human behavior as a whole and thus to integrate it with the problems and results of other disciplines is shown in many activities of its staff. Of particular interest is the work of George Katona on the psychological foundations of economic behavior, and Kenneth Boulding’s explorations into problems in the integration of the social sciences. Members of the economics staff participate in the interdisciplinary seminars in the Japanese, Near Eastern and Latin American area programs, and in the Metropolitan Community Seminar and the Seminar on Land Utilization.

Considerable emphasis is placed upon quantitative economics and econometrics. The number of courses in this field has been increased from the two courses in economic statistics formerly available, to include a semester’s work in mathematical economics, now required of all doctoral candidates, a year’s work in econometrics under Klein, a semester of research methods under Katona, and a continuing research seminar in quantitative economics. In addition, an increasing amount of quantitative research is being carried on in the substantive seminars. Particularly notable are the recent studies in the incidence of taxation carried out by Musgrave in his seminar on Fiscal Policy, and studies of interregional development directed by Stolper.

The location of the Survey Research Center here has greatly encouraged and facilitated the development in these two directions by providing personnel, materials and additional methodology for the conduct of quantitative research. It has stimulated graduate student interest in these problems through participation in research and in many cases through employment. The annual appointment of two post doctoral visiting economists as research associates of the Center, broadening the area over which ideas are interchanged, was made possible by Carnegie Corporation funds.

[p. 15] The Interdisciplinary Program in Mathematics and the Social Sciences and the Detroit Area Study, both established under the 1950 Ford Foundation grant, have made important contributions to mutual understanding of problems by mathematicians and social scientists. The Detroit program makes an annual sample survey of the population in that area, providing training for graduate students as well as a research facility for faculty members.

These developments have had a natural effect on the interests and work of graduate students. Five students at the doctoral level are now employed by the Survey Research Center as study directors. Five others are engaged as half-time research assistants in the research seminar in quantitative economics. One student is engaged in an independent sample survey project growing out of the interregional studies mentioned above, and two students are pursuing independent research utilizing data obtained from the Survey of Consumer Finances conducted annually for the Federal Reserve Board by the Center.

Quantitative research by graduate students is limited by two factors. In the first place, the costs involved in processing quantitative data in any volume discourage such activity except where the expenses can be met by the research institute, program or seminar in which the student is participating. No free departmental funds are available for this purpose.

Secondly, the department itself has not yet overcome the “cultural lag” between its encouragement of quantitative research on the one hand and its formal doctoral program on the other. Traditionally the department has placed primary emphasis on theory rather than research. The student has been required to familiarize himself with economic theory and the institutional background of economic activity. Introductory courses in statistics and accounting have long been required as research “tools” for graduate students, but although further study has always been encouraged, no formal place in the graduate curriculum has been provided for it. The members of the Economics faculty are well aware of this contradiction and it is expected that it will be resolved in the near future.

 

Political Science2

[p. 16] Although lectures in political science were given as early as 1860 (by members of the law faculty) and courses in political institutions were found in the history department from 1870 on, a political science department as such was not established until 1910. An abortive “Institute of Political Science” had been established in 1887, but administrative difficulties caused it to disappear from the scene in a few years.

The department gradually grew in size until its faculty by 1933 numbered 12. In the post war days this number doubled, and there are now 24 members on the department staff. In the early days the department expanded by adding new courses in public law, political theory, municipal government and administration, and foreign governments. The work in public administration increased gradually from 1914, when a special curriculum was organized, until 1937 when an Institute of Public and Social Administration was created, which in turn led to a separate Institute of Public Administration in 1945. From the mid-thirties on the department has expanded primarily by the addition of staff in the fields of international relations and politics.

Today there are 1887 student enrollments in a total of 43 courses. There are 71 graduate students, and 176 undergraduate concentrates. Fifteen graduate students are in the process of writing dissertations.

The department divides its program into the following six fields of specialization: American government and constitutional law, foreign governments, political parties and public opinion, political theory, public administration, international law and relations. The staff is divided unequally in these fields, reflecting the demands of undergraduate and graduate instruction. The largest number of courses in the department, according to a recent report of its Curriculum Committee, are of the institutional-descriptive type (about 40). The political theory courses follow the traditional pattern of chronological analysis of great ideas. Two methodology courses are given each for one semester only: Scope and Method of Political Science, and Bibliography and Methods of Research. A growing interest in political behavior is indicated by three courses in this area and by the use of behavioral methods and materials in other courses.

The content and method of doctoral dissertations reflects an orientation of staff and courses toward institutional-descriptive materials. Of the 56 dissertations completed since 1947 or now being written, about one-half are legal-structural studies in American national, state or local government. Another 10 [p. 17] are in the international field, with half of them in international law. Six are traditional political theory studies. Eight can be classified strictly as behavioral and these have been written in the last two or three years.

The department has several interdisciplinary linkages, both formal and informal. Four members of its staff are involved in the Japanese Research Center, the Russian Studies Program, the Latin-American Program, and the Near Eastern Studies Program. The department regularly participates in the Metropolitan Community Seminar and the Land Use Seminar. By invitation of the government and the University of the Philippines, and supported by a government contract, it organized and operates a Public Administration Training Center in Manila. It has set up special courses in conjunction with the schools of Public Health, Forestry, and Education. Its linkages with Sociology are close on occasion. The Institute of Public Administration has had a sociologist on its staff for the past year. Political science staff and graduate students were on the staff of the Detroit Area Study during two of the three years it has been going on. The Political Behavior Program has granted a research assistantship to a Sociology graduate student for the past two years. The Phoenix Project in the Institute of Public Administration, includes a sociologist as well as economists on its staff.

The most significant behavioral developments in the department, especially from a student-training standpoint, are the Political Behavior Research Program inaugurated in 1950 with Ford funds, and the Phoenix project in public administration and legislative aspects of atomic energy control. Currently several members of the department are planning a collaborative program of research on the representative process. A program of behavioral research and training is thus seen to have a substantial and promising start. It will develop by the addition of staff members in this area and by the inclusion of more research training for graduate students, in proportion as the demonstrated achievement of the current activities earn departmental support and succeed in gaining financial support.

 

Psychology3

A major development in the Department of Psychology was undertaken in the years following 1946. Prior to the war the [p. 18] department had been small, with primary emphasis in experimental work. Walter Pillsbury retired as chairman in 1943 and during the war there was greatly restricted activity. After the war, with the establishment of a training program in clinical psychology, and with the expansion in social research, the staff was trebled and the graduate program greatly broadened.

The staff now consists of 55 members, only a few of whom are appointed full time on the teaching budget. The sum of their fractional teaching appointments is 24. The other parts of their appointments are in the Institute for Social Research, on research grants, and in clinical agencies.

The main directions of activity in graduate research and training may be conveniently considered as three; clinical, social, and general experimental. There is a certain amount of administrative separation of the three, and the students tend to group in these categories, but a deliberate effort has been made to integrate their work. Four-fifths of the work of the first graduate year is common for all students; specialization begins in the second year; after prelims many of the seminars again find all kinds of students together.

There are about 110 graduate students working toward the doctoral degree in Psychology. The number is arbitrarily limited by the admission of not more than 25 or 30 graduate students each year. They are selected from 200 or more qualified applicants. Admissions are planned so that there will be about the same number of students in clinical, social and general. Only two or three a year drop out for personal or academic reasons. The Department undertakes to find half-time positions for practically all students in research, teaching or clinical work which will contribute to their training. There are 30 appointments in the Veterans Administration, 5 to 8 in other clinical agencies, 5 on United States Public Health Service stipends, about 20 in teaching, and 10-20 on research projects. Ordinarily two students hold University fellowships and two to nine hold outside fellowships. The capricious inflexibility of this system is obvious, and it is frequently impossible to provide the job most appropriate for the student’s level and direction of training.

Active research programs are carried on in the following fields, usually with some assistance from outside grants:

Visual psychophysics: Blackwell, Kristofferson
Physiological: McCleary, Smith
Learning: Walker, Birch
[p. 19]
Motivation: Atkinson, Clark
Perception: Brown
Therapy: Bordin, Raush, Hutt, Segal
Counseling and Psychodynamics: Blum, Miller, McNeil, Allinsmith
Personality Assessment: Kelly
Mathematical Methods: Coombs, Milholland, Hays
Attitude Change: Katz, Newcomb, Peak, Rosenberg
Teaching Process: McKeachie
Industrial Human Relations: Maier
Others in Institute for Social Research

Laboratory and practicum facilities, in addition to the I.S.R., include the well equipped Vision Research Laboratory, a 10- room animal research laboratory, and a 10-room experimental laboratory in addition to a 10-room teaching laboratory, all in Mason Hall. A three-room machine and wood shop is fully equipped. In the Bureau of Psychological Services is a Psychological Clinic directed by Frederick Wyatt, and a Student Counseling Service directed by Edward Bordin, both extensively used for training. Hospital facilities are favorable for training in Pediatrics, less so in Psychiatry.

One of the continuing objectives of the Department of Psychology is to realize a reasonable balance of strengths. Before the war the emphasis was almost exclusively on laboratory experimental work. With the advent of the Veterans Administration program in 1946 the emphasis became heavily clinical. The establishment in 1948 of the Institute for Social Research created an immediate emphasis in social psychology. Only in the last year or two has general experimental psychology been strengthened by new appointments, new laboratories, and outside research grants to the point where reasonable balance has been attained.

 

Sociology

Courses in sociology have been taught at Michigan for about 60 years. During half of that period the leading figure was Charles Horton Cooley, an outstanding exponent of the psychological approach to the analysis of social life. In 1930, after Cooley’s death, sociology became a separate department, under the leadership of Roderick D. McKenzie. McKenzie’s interest in human ecology was a counterfoil to the Cooley tradition. Both approaches, developed through the years, are reflected in the current work of the department.

[p. 20] The major areas of research and graduate training concern four fields: Social Organization, Human Ecology and Population, Social Psychology, and Methodology. A series of substantive courses and seminars are offered in each of these areas. Some of the principal research areas in which graduate and faculty research go on within each of these general fields are as follows:

Social Organization

Social Stratification: Landecker, Lenski, Swanson
Political Sociology: Janowitz, Campbell
Social Integration: Angell
Industrial Sociology: Carr
Comparative Community Structure: Miner
Family and Kinship: Aberle, Blood
International Social Organization: Angell and Landecker
Collective Behavior: Swanson, Aberle
The Urban Community: Hawley, Janowitz, Freedman
Religious Institutions: Lenski
The Dynamics of Small Groups: Lippitt, Swanson

Population and Human Ecology

Population Distribution: Hawley, Kish
Fertility Trends: Freedman
Migration: Freedman, Hawley

Social Psychology (see next section of report)

Methodology

Survey Research Techniques: Likert, Campbell, Kish
Group Dynamics Methodology: Lippitt
General Quantitative Methodology: Williams

The department has major responsibilities in undergraduate teaching. In the fall semester of 1953 there were 1708 course elections in sociology. Most of the undergraduate elections are in introductory courses. In the fall of 1953 there were 60 undergraduate concentrates in sociology and 24 concentrates in pre-professional social work. There were approximately 50 graduate students.

Many ties with other University units are maintained. Two staff members have joint appointments in anthropology; three have joint appointments in psychology; and four are on the staff of the Institute for Social Research. Twelve of the 24 graduate courses offered for credit during the current semester are also listed by at least one other department.

[p. 21] There has been considerable revision in the graduate curriculum during the post-war period. Outstanding trends have been increasing emphasis on (1) systematic theory, oriented to the empirical testing of hypotheses and (2) training in and utilization of new methodological developments for empirical work. Illustrative of the first trend is a seminar in Theories of Social Organization required of all doctoral candidates. Illustrative of the second trend is the required participation in the Detroit Area Study of all first year graduate students.

At the present time approximately one-third of all graduate students have their primary orientation in the field of Human Ecology and Population; the remaining two-thirds in Social Organization. Students whose major orientation is in Social Psychology generally enter the special doctoral program in that field. The department now has rather large groups of students trained for work in these three fields.

Continuing research programs involving students and faculty in these areas compose the chief development needs felt at the present time.4 These needs are reflected in part in the proposal for a social organization research program, presented elsewhere in this report. The Department assigns the highest priority to the continuation of the Detroit Area Study as a central focus for its training of first year graduate students.

Work in the area of Social Psychology is carried on mainly through the special doctoral program in Social Psychology and is described in the next section of the report. The Sociology Department makes a special contribution to this program in its emphasis on the relationship between aspects of social organization and psychological variables. Illustrative of this contribution are courses in mass communication, personality and culture, and collective behavior. Eight members of the department do teaching directly related to the social psychology program.

 

Doctoral Program in Social Psychology

In 1947 the Departments of Psychology and Sociology, wishing to avoid overlapping and competition in the field of common interest, and hoping to provide better advanced training jointly than either could provide alone, were authorized by the Graduate School to create the jointly sponsored Doctoral Program in Social Psychology. Its policies are determined by an Executive [p. 22] Committee appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School from the faculties of the two departments. The chairman, Theodore Newcomb, holds a professorship in each department.

The Program has its own requirements for admission, for courses of study and examination, and recommends candidates for the Ph.D. degree. It has no teaching staff of its own and there is no formal faculty status labeled “Social Psychology.” Instruction is provided by staff members from the Sociology and Psychology Departments. There are about 20 staff members holding graduate faculty status in one or both of the two departments who regard social psychology as their primary specialization and who give instruction in this area. Several of these people hold full-time teaching appointments; most of the rest hold primary appointments in the Institute for Social Research, characteristically teaching a one-semester course each year.

Because social psychology draws heavily upon both sociology and psychology, early specialization is discouraged. Admission to the Social Psychology Program presupposes at least one year of graduate work in one of the two “parent” fields. Certain advanced theory courses in the field which was not the student’s previous specialty are required in the program. Another important way in which students are kept in close touch with the parent fields is through the preliminary examinations; two of the four which are required in Social Psychology (Personality, Social Organization) are the same as those taken in Psychology and Sociology respectively.

Curricular requirements include a series of units in theory (mostly in small seminars), one year of advanced statistics, and three methods courses, two of which involve active experience in gathering and analyzing data. A paid assistantship, most commonly in research, less often in teaching, is found for every student for at least one of his years in the Program. Many of these are provided by the Institute for Social Research.

Only about ten students are admitted to the Program each year, roughly half from each of the two parent fields, out of a much larger number who apply. Very few of them have been Michigan undergraduates, but about half have begun their graduate study here. One advantage of selecting among applicants who have already completed a year of graduate work is that mortality is very small. The nine or ten Ph.D’s granted each year make this Program the fourth largest in the University.

Of the 35 persons who completed their degrees during the Program’s first four years, more than half now hold full-time or part-time research positions; the next largest number (about [p. 23] one-quarter) have academic teaching positions. There has been no greater difficulty in finding suitable positions for these people — perhaps less — than for Ph.D’s in Psychology or Sociology.

 

PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS

The University’s constituent schools have strength and considerable autonomy. In addition to the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts and the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies there are 13 professional schools: Architecture and Design, Business Administration5, Dentistry, Education, Engineering, Law, Medicine, Music, Natural Resources6, Pharmacy, Public Health and Social Work. The Deans of the various schools meet together at the Deans’ Conference—an important agency in the formation of overall University policies. The major part of this report is concerned with activities centered in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts and in the School of Graduate Studies. However, every professional school in the University also has certain activities with a behavioral science aspect. A special study of these activities is reported in Chapter X.

 

INSTITUTES AND RESEARCH AGENCIES

Institute for Social Research7

The Institute for Social Research, consisting of the Survey Research Center and the Research Center for Group Dynamics, [p. 24] was established by Regents’ action in 1948. It is organized on a University-wide basis, administratively independent of the teaching departments and schools, but closely allied with many of them through research, teaching, and professional interests. The Board of Regents specified that “the Institute shall be under the direction of a Director (Dr. Rensis Likert) appointed by the Board of Regents on recommendation by the President and assisted by an Executive Committee.” It provided further that “the Executive Committee shall be responsible for the determination of general policies regarding the nature and scope of the activities of the Institute…” In keeping with the broad relevance of the Institute’s activities, members of the Executive Committee have been drawn from various schools of the University.

From the time of its establishment the Institute has conceived its objective as having four main aspects: (1) the conduct of fundamental research on a variety of problems of both practical and theoretical significance, (2) the dissemination of research results in ways that maximize the usefulness of the research to other scientists and to the public at large, (3) the development of behavioral science through the training of research people and the provision of assistance and consultation to researchers at Michigan and elsewhere, and (4) the development of improved methods for social research.

The Institute conducts a broad program of quantitative research on economic and political behavior, social organization and leadership, group functioning, human relations, the process of planned and unplanned change, and the effects of group membership on individual motivation and adjustment. The research undertaken employs recently developed techniques of sampling, interviewing, quantification of verbal materials, observation and quantification of group functioning, and the experimental control and manipulation of variables determining the phenomena under investigation.

The Institute contributes to graduate training through participation in formal teaching and by providing opportunities for graduate students to take part in ongoing research projects. During the year 1953-54 eighteen members of the Institute staff held joint appointments with seven teaching departments or schools, and taught twenty-five courses. Ordinarily about forty graduate students hold appointments in the Institute, and many of these complete doctoral dissertations in conjunction with this employment.

[p. 25] The research of the Institute is administered within the two major Centers in a number of program areas under the supervision of senior professional staff members. This senior staff consists, in the Survey Research Center, of Angus Campbell, Director, and Charles F. Cannell, Robert L. Kahn, George Katona, Leslie Kish, and Stephen Withey. In the Research Center for Group Dynamics it is composed of Dorwin Cartwright, Director, and John R. P. French, Jr., Ronald Lippitt, and Alvin Zander. The regular staff of the Institute consists of about fifty research scientists, a central clerical and administrative staff of about sixty persons, and a staff of part-time field interviewers located throughout the country numbering over two hundred.

The major portion of the Institute’s financial support comes through research contracts with governmental agencies, private business firms, and professional organizations/ and through grants from research supporting foundations. The Institute during recent years has operated on a budget of approximately $800,000 per year.

 

Institute of Human Biology8

The Institute of Human Biology is a research unit of the University devoted to “the discovery of those fundamental principles of biology which may be of importance for man and the application of biological principles to human affairs.” It is supported in part by general funds of the University and in part by grants from outside sources. Its regular scientific staff of 16, supplemented by 12 other research associates or collaborators, is organized around specific research projects as research teams.

Certain Institute projects have directly significant implications for behavioral science. The Heredity Clinic functions as an outpatient clinic for the University Hospital, giving advice to referred patients on medical problems of hereditary origin and conducting research on the genetics of various defects. The Community Dynamics section conducts ecological studies with particular emphasis on communities in which man is a conspicuous member. The Assortative Mating Study is investigating the effects on the heredity of a city population which may be produced by the tendency of persons with similar traits to marry [p. 26] more or less frequently than would be expected by chance. The Hereditary Abilities Study is an elaborate investigation of human heredity using the method of comparison of identical twin, fraternal twin, and sibling pairs on a large number of psychological, bio-chemical and anthropometric variables.

 

Institute for Human Adjustment

The Institute for Human Adjustment was established by Regents’ action in 1937, its purpose being “to discover means of applying the findings of science to problems of human behavior, to train professional workers, to disseminate new information and techniques among professional workers, and as far as staff, funds, and selection of problems permit, to perform distinct social services. The actual program of the Institute is carried out through five operating units, each administratively responsible to Dean Ralph Sawyer of the Graduate School who serves also as Director of the Institute.

(1) The Division of Gerontology, Wilma Donahue, Director, engages in research in the psychosocial aspects of aging; offers educational programs for older adults in conjunction with communities, business, and industry; assists in the training of professional and volunteer workers through institutes, workshops, conferences, and publications; and serves as a consultation and information center about the problems of aging.

(2) The Fresh Air Camp, Edward Slezak, Director, provides courses in sociology, education and social work, experience in organizing group programs with children, and opportunity for systematic, supervised observation of child behavior.

(3) The Social Science Research Project, Amos Hawley, Director, is a facility for giving students of the social sciences actual field experience in research. The laboratory is the metropolitan community of Flint.

(4) The Speech Clinic, Harlan Bloomer, Director, provides opportunity for the observation, diagnosis, and treatment of all types of speech disorders, for experience in the rehabilitation of persons with hearing loss, and for research in speech pathology.

(5) The Bureau of Psychological Services, E. Lowell Kelly, Director, carries out its program through four divisions as follows:

[p. 27]
(a) Evaluation and Examining (E. J. Furst, Chief) is responsible for all university testing programs and through consultation is of service to individual staff members as well as schools and departments in improving programs of student evaluation.

(b) Student Counseling (E. S. Bordin, Chief) is designed to help students in solving their problems of educational, vocational and social adjustment.

(c) Reading Improvement (Donald Smith, Chief) provides noncredit training in reading speed and comprehension.

(d) Psychological Clinic (Frederick Wyatt, Chief) serves the general public and is especially interested in the early identification and treatment of psychological problems in the family.

Most of the units of the Institute are affiliated directly or indirectly with one or more of the teaching units of the University, and have planned their programs to contribute to the training of specialists in the fields of human adjustment as well as to provide services to individuals. Financial support for the several programs is derived from endowments of the Horace H. and Mary A. Rackham Funds, from general funds, private contributions and fees for services. In general, the funds available from these combined sources are not sufficient to provide any substantial research support in addition to the service and training functions.

 

Museums

One unit of the University Museums, the Museum of Anthropology, is concerned with social science. It is administratively distinct from the Department of Anthropology, although its curatorial staff hold academic appointments and ranks in the Department and teach two or three courses each year.

The scientific staff of the Museum consists of a director and three curators who are responsible for the collections of the Museum and who conduct research in addition to their teaching. They act only in an advisory capacity with regard to the exhibits of the Museum which are installed and maintained by a special department. The research activities of the Museum curators are in the fields of archaeology and ethnobotany and hence do not fall within a strict definition of behavioral science.

Two series of publications are issued by the Museum; any topic within the general field of anthropology is acceptable for these publications and several members of the Department staff [p. 28] have used this outlet for publications in behavioral science.9 The Museum maintains an anthropological library which is used by students and the staff of the Department.

 

The Institute of Public Administration10

The Institute of Public Administration integrates instruction, research, and service in the field of public administration. The major instructional emphasis of the Institute is its full-time graduate program for people who wish to enter the public service. The Institute also develops inservice training courses for persons already employed in public positions. Through its Bureau of Government, the Institute undertakes a governmental research program and provides technical advice and assistance on problems of local, state, and national government.

The graduate program in public administration is conceived as a training course for administrative generalists. The positions which graduates are likely to fill are those which involve staff assistance to key administrators, administrative research and procedures analysis, or personnel and fiscal management. The curriculum in public administration leads to the degree of Master of Public Administration and utilizes courses throughout the University.

The Bureau of Government is the research and public service unit of the Institute of Public Administration. One of the oldest organizations in this country devoted to governmental research, the Bureau of Government was established in 1914 as a center of information on government. Its activities now include (1) a program of research on governmental problems, (2) bulletins and pamphlets based on research findings, (3) an information service on public problems which may be used by any citizen or governmental agency, and (4) the research training of the graduate students holding research assistantships in the Institute of Public Administration.

[p. 29] Recent research publications11 have dealt with career attitudes of the personnel of a federal agency, the use of admissions and income taxes by municipalities, and the public personnel activities of professional and technical associations. Problems outside Michigan are being examined in current research on civil-military leadership and an analysis of recent changes in state constitutions. Research now being done on Michigan problems concerns highway finance, elections, and the preparation of an assessors manual to be used by all the assessors in the state.

The Bureau is undertaking a study of “Public Administration Aspects of the Atomic Energy Program,” with a special staff of research associates and assistants, under a grant from the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project.

The Institute of Public Administration, in cooperation with the University of the Philippines and the Foreign Operations Administration of the Federal Government, is now engaged in the operation of a new Institute in Manila, Philippine Islands. Under the terms of the agreement the initial personnel of the Philippine Institute are supplied by the University of Michigan, and the University of the Philippines will gradually assume complete direction. Financial support is provided jointly by the Foreign Operations Administration and the Philippine government.

 

Area Research and Training Programs

Area research and training programs at the University of Michigan include the Program in Far Eastern Studies, the Center for Japanese Studies, the Program in Latin American Studies, and the Department of Near Eastern Studies.

As the title indicates, the program in Near Eastern Studies is organized as a full department offering a concentration program to undergraduates and the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees to graduate students and having an independent staff and course list. Its basic program consists primarily of historical and linguistic training, but a close association with other departments is maintained and students are expected to develop skills in traditional disciplines. Interdisciplinary field training sessions in the Near East are held in alternate years under the guidance of two faculty members. These sessions last for a [p. 30] full year and are flexible in organization to permit the student to specialize in his particular interest.

The remaining area programs are staffed by members of various departments, and the listed courses are compilations from the offerings of those departments. Undergraduate concentration is permitted only in the Program in Far Eastern Studies. All three offer the M.A. degree and some students preparing for business or government service stop there; students continuing in graduate school transfer to one of the regular departments for the Ph.D. degree.

The Center for Japanese Studies12 maintains a special library on the campus, a field station at Okayama in Japan, and has an extensive publication program for the research of faculty and students.13

The activities of the area programs are by no means confined to the behavioral sciences. All have literary and historical interests, and elementary linguistic training is an important phase of the student’s training. Behavioral science is fostered however; community studies, for example are a characteristic activity, and the integrated multidisciplinary approach is well exemplified in the faculty seminar conducted in each program.

 

FACILITIES AND SERVICE AGENCIES

Statistical Services

The University has a variety of statistical facilities located in a number of different units.

A major facility is the Tabulating Service which is well equipped with IBM machines. These machines are available to those research projects having budgets adequate to meet the service charges. The bulk of the work done by Tabulating Service is for the Registrar’s Office and the Business Office. A significant portion is devoted to tabulations for the Institute for Social Research. Only a small part is for other research projects on the campus. In addition to the customary IBM equipment, the Tabulating Service has a 602A Calculating Punch which is used a great deal. In the spring of 1952 an IBM Card Programmed Electronic Calculator (CPC) was acquired on a trial [p. 31] basis, but there has been insufficient demand from contract research to meet the full costs of this relatively expensive machine.

The Statistical Research Laboratory exists for the express purpose of assisting faculty members and graduate students with their individual statistical problems. The laboratory maintains a small but fairly complete IBM installation (including a 602A Calculating Punch). Automatic desk calculators are also available. Most of this equipment may be used without charge provided the use is for pure, (unsponsored) research, such as doctoral dissertations.

Small IBM installations, consisting of little more than a punch and sorter, are located in other units of the University. Of major relevance to behavioral science research are those in the Institute for Social Research and in the School of Public Health.

High speed, large capacity automatic computing machines are available at the Willow Run Research Center. These are of both the analog and digital types. These facilities appear to be capable of handling statistical problems as complex as behavioral scientists are likely to encounter for some time. They are primarily used at the present time by those conducting research in engineering, natural sciences, and mathematics.

Recently a group of staff members closely associated with the various statistical services of the University submitted an unofficial report to the administrative authorities urging that steps be taken toward establishing a centralized facility for both training and research in all aspects of computation, and it is hoped that the development of the North Campus will include such a computation center more readily available to all interested University personnel.

 

Photographic Services

The University has an adequate and efficient Photographic Service, equipped to handle a wide variety of work in the field of photography. It is prepared to produce slides of all sizes in black and white or color, film strips, motion pictures, and prints. It does photomacography and photomicography. It also does a large volume of photo-offset work.

The Photographic Service has a photostating section which is equipped to handle many kinds of duplicating processes. Its Ozalid facilities are used extensively for reproducing transcripts and theses. Its map service may be used for photographing maps and modifying their scale.

[p. 32] These services are available at cost to anyone connected with the University. At the present time 11 people are engaged in the work of the Photographic Service.

 

Publication Facilities

The University has very limited facilities for scholarly publication. Some funds are regularly available from the University budget for publications, but only a very small portion of this sum is available to the behavioral sciences. Editorial facilities are so limited that few scholars are willing to endure the publication lag involved in obtaining editorial help. The Institute for Social Research has employed a full-time editor to facilitate its own publications.

The University of Michigan Press, organized in 1930, is currently undergoing study and reorganization and there is widespread hope that it will become a more significant and effective agency in Michigan scholarship.

 

The Library

The University has a large library with a competent and efficient staff. Lack of sufficient space, however, has operated to reduce the efficiency of library service. The University General Library Building is badly overcrowded. Many acquisitions of research materials cannot be made easily available because of inadequate shelves and files. Lack of space has also led to an excessive dispersion of materials in numerous special collections housed in various buildings about the campus. The groupings of materials at separate locations has not always been functional from the point of view of the behavioral scientist with an interdisciplinary interest. The University administration regards the improvement of library facilities as a first priority in general development plans, and important steps are now being taken to relieve the overcrowding by the construction of a stack building on the North Campus and of the Kresge Medical Library building.

 

Audio-Visual Education Center

The University has a well-equipped Audio-Visual Education Center, with a large collection of sixteen-millimeter sound and silent motion pictures, filmstrips, tape recordings, and art reproductions. It also is prepared to produce a variety of audio-visual materials and to provide consultation on the use of audio-visual [p. 33] materials. The staff of the Center offer graduate and undergraduate courses in audio-visual methods in the School of Education and in the Extension Service. Instructors in schools and departments on the campus may obtain materials from the Center without charge for instructional purposes. Projection service is also available without charge for any regularly scheduled University class.

 

GENERAL LEVEL OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE ACTIVITY

In order to bring together the relevant data about the departments the following table has been prepared. These data are for the year 1953-54. They are provided for confidential use and should not be published in any form. Figures on numbers of students and on class enrollments are particularly difficult to use in comparisons between universities because of the differences in methods of calculation.

1954_Michigan_BehSciencesTable

 

[NOTES]

 

  1. Appendix item 5; The Division of the Social Sciences: Reprinted from “The University of Michigan, An Encyclopedia Survey” Ann Arbor, Univ. Mich. Press, 1942, Vol. I, pp 304-306. Appendix item 6; List of Members, General Committee of the Division of the Social Sciences, University of Michigan, 1953-54. Appendix item 7; News Letters of the Division of Social Sciences, University of Michigan, April, 1950, June, 1952, January, 1953, May, 1953. Appendix item 8; List of Faculty Members in the Social Sciences, University of Michigan, 1953.
  2. Appendix item 9; The Department of Political Science. Reprinted from “The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedia Survey” Ann Arbor, Univ. Mich. Press, Part IV, 1944, pp 702-708.
  3. Appendix item 10; The Department of Psychology, Reprinted from “The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedia Survey” Ann Arbor, Univ. Mich. Press, Part IV, 1944, pp 708-714.
  4. Appendix item 11; Suggestions to the Dean and Executive Committee from the Department of Sociology on the Development Council Request.
  5. Appendix item 12; Publications, School of Business Administration, Bureau of Business Research, Bureau of Industrial Relations, Univ. of Michigan, 1953.
  6. Appendix item 13; Dept. of Conservation: The First Three Years (1950-1953) Univ. of Mich. School of Natural Resources. Appendix item 14; The School of Natural Resources and the Social Sciences, 1951.
  7. Appendix item 15; Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, Research Center for Group Dynamics, Univ. of Mich., 1952. Appendix item 16; Executive Committee and Staff of the Institute for Social Research, 1953. Appendix item 17; Publications of the Institute for Social Research, September, 1952 through November, 1953.
  8. Appendix item 18; Institute of Human Biology, Univ. of Mich. Appendix item 19; Publications, Institute of Human Biology, March 1, 1953.
  9. Culture and Agriculture by Horace M. Miner, Occasional Contributions from the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, No. 14, 1949; Araucanian Culture in Transition by Mischa Titiev, Occasional Contributions from the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, No. 15, 1951; Spanish-Guarani Relations in Early Colonial Paraguay by Elman R. Service, Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 9, 1954.
  10. Appendix item 20; Institute of Public Administration, 1954- 55 Announcement, University of Michigan, Official Publication.
  11. Appendix item 21; Publications. Bureau of Government, Institute of Public Administration, February, 1953.
  12. Appendix item 22; Center for Japanese Studies, Announcement, June 11, 1954.
  13. Appendix item 23; Publications, Center for Japanese Studies and Near Eastern Studies, 1953.

 

Source: University of Michigan. Survey of the Behavioral Sciences. Report of the Faculty Committee and Report of the Visiting Committee. Ann Arbor, Michigan: July 1, 1954.

 

Categories
Economists Stanford

History of Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. From Report to Ford Foundation, 1954

Having most recently posted brief histories of the behavioral sciences as reported by Harvard and Chicago to a larger Ford Foundation Project that was completed 1953-4, I simply couldn’t resist going the extra mile to add the corresponding chapter for Stanford University’s contribution to the project here. I have added boldface to highlight economics-specific information for those of you historians of economics in a hurry.

________________________________

[p. 6]

Chapter 3
The Development of the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford

I. PRIOR TO THE SECOND WORLD WAR

A. Teaching. When instruction at the University began, in 1891, there were at Stanford only three departments—History, Psychology, and Economics and Social Science—embracing the field of the behavioral sciences. The last of these had three divisions: I. Political Economy, Statistics and Finance; II. Sociology; and III. Political Science. Thus all the present behavioral science departments except Journalism were present in some form or other from the very start. The Economics Department retained its conglomerate character as the haven of incipient departments until the Second World War.

In the next year, 1892, there were added two new departments — Education and Law — which for a period of years were closely related to the original three. The Department of Law was not conceived on a merely vocational basis, but listed among its “ultimate aims” the furnishing of “such instruction in the elementary principles of Anglo-American law as may properly form a part of the education of an American citizen”; the furnishing of “such instruction in commercial law as may be adapted to the needs of those who intend to become merchants, bankers, brokers, etc. or to follow other lines of business”; the providing “for students intending to enter the public service, adequate instruction in public and international law”; and the furnishing “to students of political and social science, training in special branches of law related to such subjects”.1 The Department of Education in its very first year listed at least one course, “Studies on Children”, that was [p. 7] substantially a psychology course, and over the many succeeding years such courses were increased in number and scope as the Department developed into a School.

The “charter members” of the Stanford faculty in the behavioral sciences included at least two eminent figures. Andrew Dickson White, who had been President of Cornell from 1866-1885 and Minister to Germany from 1879-1881, was the first Professor of History. His service at Stanford was interrupted from 1892-1894 while he was President Cleveland’s Minister to Russia and in 1896 while he served on the Venezuelan Commission. The first Professor of Law was Benjamin Harrison, who came to his chair at Stanford immediately on taking his leave of the Presidency of the United States in 1893. The original Professor of Psychology, Frank Angell, continued in his chair until 1921 and was the last of the “charter” faculty in the behavioral sciences to retire. Amos Griswold Warner, first Professor of Economics, had been Superintendent of Charities in Washington, D. C. The stamp of his influence was reflected in the curriculum for most of the years following until the Second World War, particularly in the emphasis on social institutions, on reform and remedial legislation, and on charities and humanitarianism.

Stanford was coeducational from the start; in fact, the first person awarded the Ph.D. degree in the behavioral sciences was a woman, Mary Roberts Smith, who received her degree in Sociology in the year 1896. The first doctorate in any field had been awarded two years before in Geology. In the very first academic year, nine behavioral science degrees were awarded, 8 in History and 1 in Economics and Social Science. There were 63 student majors in the behavioral sciences that year—1 in Psychology, 49 in History, and 13 in Economics and Social Science. At the second commencement 4 students of History and 1 in Economics and Social Science were granted master’s degrees, the first in the departments’ history. The first class to complete four years’ residence, 1894-95, graduated 31 in behavioral sciences: [p. 8] 20 A.B.’s and 1 M.A. in History, 6 A.B.’s in Economics and Social Science, and 4 A.B.’s in Law.

The curriculum of the first year, especially in History and in Economics and Social Science, reflected the major concerns and horizons of that age. The Psychology Department offered only two courses, Elementary and Advanced Psychology. The History Department offered courses in Greek, Roman, and Medieval History, the History of the Christian Church, of the English Constitution, of the French Revolution, of the Pacific Slope, and American Political History — a historical diet confined largely to the history of Western Europe and Anglo-America. The History Department listed three courses for graduate students with this explanation: “The courses offered to graduate students are especially designed to afford a training in methods of historical research, through the use of original materials. The results of such investigations are presented in the seminary, to which these courses are tributary. No attempt, however, is made sharply to separate the undergraduate from the graduate department. Graduates will often find it to their advantage to take courses designated for undergraduates; while undergraduates with adequate preparation may, by invitation of the professor, be admitted to courses primarily designed for graduates.”2 The problem of graduate courses has, it can be seen, been with us from the beginning. The fuzziness of disciplinary lines is reflected in the first list of courses in the Department of Economics and Social Science. As a matter of interest it is reproduced here.

  1. Principles of Political Economy. Elementary course.
  2. Advanced Economic Theory: Bimetallism, Railway Transportation, etc.
  3. A History of Tariff Legislation in the United States.
  4. Taxation and Finance.
  5. Statistics: History, Theory, and Technique.
  6. [p. 9] Social Science: with special reference to Public Charities and the Management of Penal Institutions.
  7. A Study of Industrial Corporations.
  8. A History of Agriculture and Prices.
  9. Commercial Relations of the United States.
  10. History of Economic Theories.
  11. Civil Service Reform in England and the United States.
  12. Sociology
  13. Land and Land Tenure. The Australian System of Registration.
  14. Method in Domestic Consumption.
  15. Communism and Socialism.
  16. Co-operation: Its History and its Influence.
  17. A History of Industry, including Trade Unions, Guilds, Factory Systems, Strikes, Arbitration, Labor Organizations, etc.
  18. Municipal Administration: the Natural Monopolies, Police, Taxation, etc.
  19. Railroad Management: A Course offered in cooperation with the Engineering Department.
  20. City and State Politics.
  21. A History of Estates and Land Tenure in California.
  22. Recent Social Reform.

 

There were many changes during the University’s first fifty years. One of the early changes occurred in 1899 in the Department of Law. In that year the departmental objective was redefined: “This Department offers such courses in Law as are usually given in professional law schools.”3 in that year a three-year program leading to the Bachelor of Laws degree was inaugurated, and the A.B. in law was soon thereafter abandoned.

The changing names of the Department originally called Economics and Social Science reflect its changes in personnel and curriculum. Sociology courses waxed and waned several times in its history. Political Science ran a more even course, but it also virtually disappeared in the years from 1902 until 1908. The following table summarizes the development of this department.

Department Title:   Years

Department of Economics and Social Science:   1891-1894
Department of Economics and Sociology:   1895-1901
Department of Economics and Social Science:   1902-1911
[p. 10]
Department of Economics:   1912-1914
Department of Economics and Political Science:   1915-1918
Department of Economics:   1919 – date
Department of Political Science:   1919 – date
Division of Sociology, Department of Economics:   1926 through 1940

While the Department of Psychology expanded very slowly in its first thirty years under Professor Angell, the psychology offering in the Department of Education4 flourished in the earlier years (1897-1903) under Professor Edwin Diller Starbuck and later (1910-1921) under Professor Lewis Madison Terman. On Professor Angell’s retirement in 1921, President Wilbur designated Professor Terman head of the Department of Psychology, after which date the department grew rapidly in personnel, in curriculum, and in enrollment. Whereas in the preceding years the psychology curriculum in the Department of Education had rivaled that of the department proper in every respect, thereafter the Psychology Department was dominant.

One of the present behavioral sciences originated at Stanford in the humanities curriculum. In 1908 the Department of English Literature and Rhetoric announced that “students preparing for journalism may substitute for the more advanced courses in literature, courses in Advanced Composition, History, Economics and Social Science.”5 In 1910 Everett Wallace Smith gave a course in News Writing in this department. In 1917 Journalism became a sub-division of the Department of English. It became the Division of Journalism in 1920, and in 1924 the Division was transferred from the Department of English to the jurisdiction of the newly organized School of Social Sciences.6

[p. 11] In the years following upon the First World War there were two major additions to the behavioral science resources of Stanford, both deriving from the interests and activities of her most celebrated alumnus, Herbert Hoover. These were, of course, the Food Research Institute established in 1921 and the Hoover War Library established in 1924. “The Food Research Institute is organized under a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York for the purpose of studying the production, distribution, and consumption of food,” declared the Annual Register of 1922. “The Hoover War Library is a collection of materials for research in the causes, conduct, and results of the Great War, covering also the period of reconstruction since the end of the war. These materials are of all kinds and from all the nations of the world, whether belligerent or neutral, but special efforts have been made to secure those which will be useful in research along the lines of non-military history and on social, economic, and governmental problems.”7

There was also expansion in this post-war period in the direction of a required course for freshmen not intent upon a behavioral science major. In 1923, Professor Edgar Eugene Robinson of the History Department was made director of an interdisciplinary program in Citizenship. It consisted of “a general introductory course required of all students in their first year. Designed to present the salient features in the bases and background of present-day society; to consider the place of education in modern life and the political equipment of the citizen; and to examine in detail the fundamental political, social, and economic problems of the American people.”8 Lectures were given by professors in such fields as History, Geology, Law, Philosophy, Political Science, Mechanical Engineering, Education, and Psychology. These were supplemented by smaller discussion groups. In 1935 [p. 12] Citizenship gave way to the History of Western Civilization under the jurisdiction of the Department of History, by this time headed by Professor Robinson, as the course required of all freshmen. It retained the technique of combining lectures with discussion sessions.

One may perhaps summarize the growth of the faculty over the University’s first fifty years by citing some of the better-known names among them. The Department of History included such regular members as Max Farrand, Ralph Haswell Lutz, Edward Maslin Hulme, Thomas Andrew Bailey, and George Vernadsky, and such visitors as Carl Lotus Becker, Guy Stanton Ford, Ralph Henry Gabriel, Samuel Flagg Bemis, and Carlton J. H. Hayes. The Department of Psychology had Walter R. Miles, Lewis Madison Terman, Calvin B. Stone, and Ernest Hilgard as members, and Karl Buhler, Albert Edward Michotte, Kurt Lewin, and Edwin G. Boring as visitors. The Economics Department claimed among its number Thorstein Veblen, Alvin Saunders Johnson, Harley Leist Lutz, Bernard Francis Haley, Joseph Stancliffe Davis, and Theodore Harding Boggs, and among its visitors Frank Albert Fetter, John Maurice Clark, Charles Jesse Bullock, Alvin Harvey Hansen, Jacob Viner, and Fritz Machlup. The political scientists included such permanent professors as Westel Woodbury Willoughby, Burt Estes Howard, Victor J. West, Edward Angell Cottrell, Thomas Swain Barclay, Hugh McDowall Clokie, and Charles Fairman, and such guests as James Wilford Garner, Arthur N. Holcombe, Francis William Coker, Edward Samuel Corwin, Harold Hance Sprout, Arthur W. MacMahon, Henry Russell Spencer, Peter H. Odegard, William Anderson, Clyde Eagleton, James Kerr Pollock, and Leonard Dupee White.9 Among the sociologists there were Charles N. Reynolds and Richard LaPiere. From 1907 to 1914 George H. Sabine was a member of the Department of Philosophy.

The office of Executive Head of the Department was first mentioned in the Annual Register of 1913-1914. It was early established that the Stanford [p.13] policy was to have a permanent department head rather than a rotating one, except in the Food Research Institute. The Department of Economics had two permanent heads in the period from the beginning of the First World War to the beginning of the Second World War, Murray Shipley Wildman (1915-1930) and Bernard Francis Haley (from 1931). History had four chairmen: Edward Benjamin Krehbiel (1913-1914), Ephraim Douglas Adams (1914-1922), Payson Jackson Treat (1922-1930), and Edgar Eugene Robinson (from 1930). Psychology had two chairmen: Frank Angell (1913-1922) and Lewis Madison Terman (from 1922). Political Science also had two: Victor J. West (1919-1927) and Edwin Angell Cottrell (from 1927). The Food Research Institute had three joint directors, who rotated the executive directorship among them – Alonzo Engelbert Taylor, Carl Lucas Alsberg, and Joseph Stancliffe Davis. In 1942 the present director, Merrill Kelley Bennett became executive director. There were two chairmen of the Hoover War Library: Ephraim Douglass Adams (1923-1924) and Ralph Haswell Lutz (from 1924), as there were in the School of Social Sciences—Murray Shipley Wildman (1923-1930) and Edwin Angell Cottrell (from 1930)–and in the Department of Journalism— Everett Wallace Smith (1927-1933) and Chilton Rowlette Bush (from 1933).

Until the year 1908-1909 the History Department had the greatest enrollment of student majors. In that year the Economics Department overtook History and with the exception of a few years immediately following has remained the largest department in terms of total enrollment in the behavioral sciences area. The History Department, however, continued to have the greatest enrollment of graduate students throughout this period. From the beginning, the Psychology Department had the smallest enrollment in the behavioral sciences area. When the Political Science Department was established in 1919, it immediately exceeded the Psychology Department in enrollment. From the year 1922 on—the first of Professor Terman’s chairmanship—the number of graduate students was higher [p. 14] in proportion to undergraduates in the Psychology Department than in any other behavioral science department.

The table which follows summarizes the degrees granted by the several behavioral science departments in the first fifty years of Stanford’s history, and in the case of Ph.D.’s through the academic year 1952-1953.

A.B.’s M.A.’s Ph.D.’s
 

Depart-ment

Prior 1920 1921-1940 Prior 1920 1921-1940 Prior 1920 1921-1940 1941-1953
Econo-mics 600 2998 34 82 4 41 14
History 708 917 90 223 2 55 63
Journal-ism 8 317 0 20 0 0 0
Food Research 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Inter-national Relations 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Political Science 7 1000 1 138 0 33 26
Psycho-logy 31 303 1 70 1 49 64
Sociology & Anthro-pology * 159 * 22 1 12 9
Social Sciences 0 1161 0 9 0 1 0

*Prior to 1928, Sociology A.B.’s and M.A.’s were included as Economics Degrees.

It is noteworthy that the number of A.B.’s in Psychology increased ten times in the inter-war years as compared with the first thirty years, and the A.B.’s in Economics six times in the same period, in spite of the fact that in the later period such new departments and programs as Political Science, Sociology, and Social Sciences siphoned off elements among the students previously included under Economics. Growth in terms of the number of advanced degrees awarded is similarly reflected in comparing the two periods—with the single exception of the number of Ph.D.’s granted in Economics between 1941 and 1953. Whereas the average had earlier been [p. 15] about two Economics Ph.D.’s a year, in the more recent period it has declined to slightly more than one per year.

In all the fields there has been a great increase in the number of courses given. In the inter-war years the departments began to classify their course offerings both as to level of complexity and as to subject matter. The establishment of the lower division and the increase in the size of the faculty were among the factors leading to this change. It is also possible to detect changes in emphasis in the course offerings of the departments over the years, reflecting both the development of the subject matter of the several fields and the shifting interests of individual faculty members.

In the field of psychology, for example, in the first thirty years the courses primarily bore such all-embracing titles as Elementary, Advanced, Experimental, Applied, Systematic, Comparative, and Social Psychology and Psychological Literature. Child psychology and testing were offered in the School of Education. After the First World War, statistics, physiology, clinical psychology, child psychology, and testing, personality measurement, and vocational guidance were emphasized in the curriculum.

Throughout the first fifty years of Stanford’s history the economics curriculum was dominated by courses on economic institutions as opposed to economic theory. Courses on railroads, corporation finance, money and banking, economic history, labor legislation, accounting, insurance, tax procedure and the like comprised the major part of the offering. Secretarial training was also included in the economics curriculum. It is apparent that the primary objective of this department was to afford apprenticeship to a business career. In the later years of this period, however, there was an increase in the offering of theoretical [p. 16] courses such as capital and income, production economics, mathematical economics, value and distribution, and the history of economic thought.

Perhaps the most striking changes in emphasis over the years occurred in the history curriculum. The early emphasis on Rome, the Middle Ages, the Italian Renaissance, and British constitutional history was supplemented in the first decade of the century by courses in International Law, Diplomatic History of the United States, and the Westward Movement in the United States, and such courses in the history of the Far East as the History of Australasia, the Philippines, and Tropical Colonization in the Far East. In 1911 there were added a course on Spain and Spanish America and one on international conciliation, and in 1913 the first courses in Japanese history. After the war there appeared courses in the Slavic nationalities, Russia, the Baltic States, the World War, and the Paris Peace Conference. As the number of courses on modern Europe, the history of the United States, Latin America and the Far East increased, Greek and Roman history were taken over by the Classics Department; international law and conciliation were taken over by the Department of Political Science and the School of Law; and the Middle Ages and the History of the Christian Church assumed-a lesser role.

When political science was still a part of the Economics Department, such courses as the theory of the state, methods of legislating, administration of states, cities, and towns, practical politics, modern federal government, and political theory were offered. The History Department, as has been noted, offered courses in the international field. When the Department of Political Science was organized after the war, the course offering fell into the following general areas: elementary courses in American government and state and local government, comparative government, political theory, political parties, administration, relation of [p. 17] government and industry, and international relations. As early as 1924 there was a course in quantitative measurements in public administration, and in the following year there was a course in political statistics. In 1928 a course in public law was offered for the first time. With the exception of the statistical courses, these general areas have continued to be the principal ones in the political science curriculum.

Throughout the first fifty years of the University’s history, the sociology curriculum was combined with Economics. There is, however, evidence of the development of the subject matter during this period. In the nineties there were courses in static and dynamic sociology (using as texts Herbert Spencer and Lester F. Ward), in social pathology, charities and corrections, penology, and even statistics and sociology. Static and dynamic sociology disappeared, but charities, causes of poverty, and courses of that type persisted into the war years. After the war the character of the courses changed. Problems of Poverty, of Child Welfare, Crime as a Social Problem, and Care of Dependents were courses given in the early twenties. Later, courses in population, rural society, social organization, and sociological theory were added to the curriculum, and from this developed an emphasis that persisted until the Second World War. In 1937 a course in Cultural Anthropology was included in the sociology offering, marking the beginning of anthropological instruction.

We have already noted the beginnings of Journalism in the English Department, with one course in Newswriting in 1910 supplemented in 1912 by one in Current Newspapers. By 1916 there were eight courses covering newswriting, analysis, reporting, editing, management and advertising. In 1920, as we have seen, Journalism was recognized as a Division of English and, in 1925, of the School of Social Sciences. From this time the curriculum continued to grow—with courses in geographical, [p. 18] sociological and legal aspects of journalism, techniques of propaganda and investigative methods in journalism.

From its inception the Food Research Institute offered a course in Food Research Problems. In 1934 a course for upper division students in The World’s Food was added, and in 1940 there was a considerable increase in the number of courses offered, including Consumption Economics, Commodity Prices, American Agricultural Policy, Foreign Agricultural Policy, and Agriculture and the Business Cycle.

In 1931 the Hoover Library offered a course in Problems of Research. By 1937 this had been expanded to include directed research in such special fields as the World War and Reconstruction, Austria-Hungary, the Bolshevik Party and the Third International, Soviet Policies and the Civil War, Housing in the United States, History of International Relations since 1914, European Totalitarianism, and the German Revolution, 1918-1919.

 

B. Research Institutes and Grants. The establishment of the Hoover War Library just after the First World War inaugurated the first major research development in the behavioral sciences at Stanford. The Annual Report of the President for 1920 notes that:

The Hoover War Library has grown steadily during the year through gifts and purchases. Professor E. D. Adams and Professor Ralph Lutz have been actively engaged in assembling and classifying this notable collection. Several students have already entered the University in order to do research work with the help of this collection and it is inevitable that there will be a considerable increase in the number of such students from year to year.10

In the following year the plans for establishing the Food Research Institute were announced.

[p. 19] During the year the final plans for the organization of the Food Research Institute of Stanford University have been consummated. The general terms of this gift are as follows: A contract was drawn up between Stanford and the Carnegie Corporation of New York in which the University agreed to set up the research organization ‘to study the problems of the production, distribution and consumption of foodstuffs’, to appoint 3 scientists as Directors who shall determine the research pursuits and be Professors with teaching a secondary aspect of their duties, appoint a 7 man Advisory Committee, furnish housing etc. free, and disburse the money.11

The Corporation agreed to supply $54,000 from July 1, 1921, to June 30, 1922; $66,000 from July 1, 1922, to June 30, 1923; and $73,000 annually for the next eight years. Two years before the expiration of the contract a conference would be held to determine the Institute’s future status.

The Annual Report12 went on to state that

Dr. Alonzo E.Taylor, Dr. Carl L. Alsberg, and Dr. Joseph S. Davis have been appointed as Directors of the Institute. The Advisory Committee is made up as follows: Mr. Herbert Hoover, Mr. A. R. Howard, of the American Farm Bureau; Dr. John C. Merriam, President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington; Mr. George C. Roeding, Mr. Julius Barnes, President William M. Jardine, of the Kansas State Agricultural College; President of the Carnegie Corporation, President of Stanford University. One of the original buildings in the Inner Quadrangle, formerly occupied by the Department of German, has been set aside for the use of the Directors. The Hoover War Library, which formed the main center of attraction for the Food Research Institute, is being assembled on one floor of the stacks of the new Library with an adjacent special reading room for the use of the members of the Food Research Institute and faculty and students of the Departments of History and Economics. The Food Research Institute constitutes one of the most notable opportunities for research of a wide scope that has come to any university in America within recent years.

In 1924, the specific plans for the Hoover War Library were announced.13

[p. 20] The Hoover War Library is a separate gift and has special endowment funds for the maintenance of certain of its features. It is under the general administration of the University Librarian.

In order to make it possible to:

a. secure acquisitions in the many different fields touched upon by the Library,
b. care for the interests of graduate students and others using the facilities of the Library, and
c. determine upon the lines of development,

Directors of the Hoover War Library are to be appointed with a relationship to the Library similar to that of a departmental faculty …

Many additions have been made to the collection during the course of the year. Mr. Hoover has increased his personal gifts until they now total about $90,000 in cash expended. The Directors of the library are making every reasonable effort to make it one of the great war collections of the world.

When the time came for renegotiation of the original contract of the Food Research Institute, the Carnegie Corporation acted by granting $750,000 in 1931 to provide a permanent endowment. In the brochure of the Institute describing its activities and publications14 its financial history is described as follows:

The [Carnegie] Corporation guaranteed funds for a period of ten years, while Stanford University undertook to provide quarters and facilities for the Institute and accorded it departmental status. Financial support is at present derived jointly from endowment granted by Carnegie Corporation to Stanford University in continuing support of the Institute, from University appropriations, and from short-term grants provided by foundations and other private organizations.

In 1939, the plans for building the Hoover Library building were announced

For some years we have been accumulating funds for the construction of the Hoover Library Building. With the original funds, the gift of $50,000 from Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the $300,000 from the Belgian- American Educational Foundation, Inc.,in hand, the university architects prepared plans for a monumental structure… It is anticipated that the building will be completed in 1940.15

[p. 21] With the completion of this building the two principal research facilities of Stanford’s first fifty years, and, indeed, in the lifetime of the University were solidly established.

The major grants for behavioral science research in the years prior to the Second World War, aside from those for the Hoover Library and the Food Research Institute, were the Laura Spellman Fund of the Rockefeller Foundation, which amounted to $454,838.49; funds to Professor Terman for his studies of intellectually gifted children—$60,673.29 from the Commonwealth Fund and $26,000 from the Carnegie Corporation; and funds for sex research granted to Professors Stone, Miles, and Terman by the Academy of Sciences, amounting to $73,298.73.

The principal publication output of the Hoover Library comprised a series of eighteen books of collected documents, memoirs, and special studies, and those of the Food Research Institute included seventeen volumes of Wheat Studies, three monographs in the Grain Economics Series, seven Fats and Oils Studies, and nine Miscellaneous Publications. The publications resulting from the Laura Spellman Fund are tabulated in Appendix I to Chapter 14.

[p. 22]

II. SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR

Since the Second World War the following major ohanges in the behavioral science field have occurred at Stanford:

 

A. New Departments and Agencies Established. The Department of Sociology and Anthropology was set up on an independent basis in 1948. Previously sociology had been under the Department of Economics. Anthropology teaching had begun with the arrival at Stanford in 1945 of Felix M. Keesing, who was to be appointed three years later as head of the new joint department. Other major additions to the staff in this area included Paul Wallin (appointed in 1942) in sociology and Bernard J. Siegel (appointed in 1947) and Bert A. Gerow (appointed in 1948) in anthropology.

The Department of Statistics was established in 1949 under the chairmanship of Albert H. Bowker. It quickly became a major center for research, which two years later was institutionalized as the Laboratory of Applied Mathematics and Statistics. Important staff appointments included Meyer Abraham Girshick (1948), Herman Chernoff (1951), and Charles E. Stein (1953).

In 1943 two professors of geography were brought to Stanford on a permanent basis. Seven years later, geography was established as a separate department under the chairmanship of C. Langdon White.

In 1951 the Committee for Research in the Social Sciences (CRISS) was set up as an inter-departmental body for the initiation, screening, and coordination of social science research. In the following year Alfred de Grazia, of the Political Science Department, was appointed its first executive officer, (see Chapter 8,III).

 

B. Remade Departments. In the years following 1945, first under the chairmanship of Bernard P. Haley and later under that of Edward S. Shaw, [p. 23] the Economics Department was restaffed with a series of outstanding younger scholars. The result has been a “planned” and well-integrated staff. The present national reputation of the department, particularly in the field of economic theory, largely dates from this period. The major additions to the staff, with their dates of appointment, are as follows: Tiber Scitovsky (1946), Lorie Tarshis (1946), Melvin W. Reder (1947), Moses Abramovitz (1948), Paul A. Baran (1949), Kenneth J. Arrow (1949).

A similar expansion tool: place in the Department of Psychology following the appointment of Ernest R. Hilgard as executive head in 1945. Here the chief additions to the staff now at associate or full professor rank included: Lois Meek Stolz (1945), Donald W. Taylor (1.945), Clarence L. Winder (1948), and Douglas H. Lawrence (1949). Last year Robert R. Sears was called to Stanford from a Harvard professorship to succeed Professor Hilgard as head of the department following the latter’s appointment as Dean of the Graduate Division.

The expansion of the Psychology Department was in three directions: (1) the Clinical Psychology Ph.D. program supported by the Veterans Administration and the Public Health Service; (2) the nursery school and child development laboratory; (3) the Office of Project Research, as a “holding company” and initiator of research sponsored by the government and the foundations (see Chapter 8,V).

 

C. Changes in Other Behavioral Science Areas. Both History and Political Science have recently acquired new chairmen. In 1952 Thomas A. Bailey was appointed executive head of the former department and James T. Watkins IV of the latter. Today, of the behavioral science departments, only Journalism is under its pre-war head.

Of recent years the Department of History has pursued a vigorous policy of recruiting its staff from highly diversified academic and [p.24] geographical backgrounds. Areas in which substantial new staff recruiting has taken place include Far Eastern History—Claude A. Buss (1946), Arthur F. Wright (1947), and Thomas C. Smith (1948)—and United States history— John C. Miller (1949), Frank Freidel (1953), and Don E. Fehrenbacher (1953).

In Political Science, eight out of ten staff members of the rank of assistant professor and above are post-war appointees. Concurrently the Department has supplemented its earlier emphasis on international relations with added attention to public administration and political behavior.

The immediate post-war years saw the Hoover Institute and Library expanding its interests in new areas to which the Second World War had given increased importance. Whereas the pre-war collections had been heavily concentrated on Central and Eastern Europe, the Far East and, to a lesser extent, the Middle East now became areas of major interest. In 1941, the Hoover Library holdings on Asia and the Middle East consisted only of materials relating to mandates or colonies of European powers. Virtually none of this material was in the vernacular languages of these areas.

Since 1945, the Hoover Library has been making a systematic effort to collect and preserve the sources for the political, social, and economic history of Asia and the Middle East during the twentieth century, together with relevant background materials. The political and social movements of the twentieth century—nationalism, communism, religious movements with political significance, etc.—have formed the basis for the collections. The Chinese collection now numbers some 34,000 volumes; the Japanese collection, some 20,000 volumes; the Middle East collections, principally in Turkish and Arabic, some 8,000 volumes; the South Asian, and Southeast Asian collections are much smaller. These new interests have been reflected in the appointment of highly-trained scholars to serve as curators for the new collections—Christina P. Harris (Middle [p. 25] East), Mary C. Wright (China, Southeast Asia, and South Asia), and Nobutaka Ike (Japan).

Experiments in the application of newer techniques of behavioral science have constituted much of the post-war research in the Hoover Institute. The leading project, Revolution and the Development of International Relations (RADIR), was supported by the Carnegie Corporation.

 

D. Related Professional Schools. A further sign of the post-war tendency toward growth and change can be seen in the appointment of new deans for the School of law (Carl B. Spaeth, 1946), the School of Medicine (Windsor C. Cutting, 1953), and the School of Education (I. James Quillen, 1953).

 

E. Conclusion: Prospects for Continued Development. It is the conviction of the committee responsible for the present survey that the above evidences of development and branching into new fields of teaching and research represent the dominant tendency in Stanford today. The growth potential of the University is apparent in nearly all areas of behavioral science interest. The purpose of the present study is to look ahead on the basis of the foundations now in existence—bearing constantly in mind that for a comparatively small university the most advisable course is considerable specialization within departments rather than an effort to cover all fields equally.

 

[NOTES]

  1. Annual Register, 1892-93, p. 72.
  2. Annual Register, 1891-92.
  3. Annual Register, 1899-1900, p. 98.
  4. Became School of Education in 1917.
  5. Annual Register, 1908-09, p. 89.
  6. Established in 1924.
  7. Annual Register, 1924-25, p.240
  8. Annual Register, 1923-24.
  9. These twelve men are all former presidents of the American Political Science Association, as was W. W. Willoughby, mentioned earlier.
  10. Annual Report of the President, 1920, p. 28.
  11. Annual Report of the President, 1921, p.7.
  12. Ibid., p. 9.
  13. Annual Report of the President, 1924, p.3.
  14. Stanford University Press, 1948, p. 2.
  15. Annual Report of the President, 1939, p. 14.

 

Source: The Stanford Survey of the Behavioral Sciences. Report of the Executive Committee and Staff, July 1954.

Image Source: Library of Congress. Encina Hall, Leland Stanford Junior University (1898).

 

 

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

History of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, from 1954 Report to Ford Foundation

The previous two postings (first and second postings here) were extracts taken from the Harvard Report on the Behavioral Sciences from 1954 to the Ford Foundation. Now we take a look at the Report prepared at the University of Chicago that was part of the same project involving five universities (Chicago, Harvard, Michigan, North Carolina and Stanford). Here I extract Appendix D from the Chicago Report by the University of Chicago historian, Richard J. Storr. This gives us a top-down narrative of where the department of political economy fits into the history of social sciences at Chicago. It provides a nice companion piece to the historical survey for Harvard in the Mason report.

______________________

[p. 158]

Notes on the History of the Social Sciences at Chicago1

No university becomes great unwittingly. Soon or late the members of a college nearing the great divide in higher education will awaken to the necessity of choosing their ground. If the faculty does not altogether recoil from the thought of offering graduate and professional courses, it may still feel so uncertain of the future that it lays its plans for expansion by bits and pieces. If it is more venturesome, it may begin with a large scheme, framed in one piece. When a university has been established, its officers will from time to time appraise the fruits of planning in the past and make new plans for the future. So the idea of a university is a palimpsest of designs, some ancient, some modern, some wise, some foolish, some brilliant, some pedestrian, but all the product of more or less conscious thought.

These notes are a commentary on certain ideas which have stood in the background of research in the social sciences at Chicago between 1888 and 1939. The information used here has been extracted, of necessity rather hastily, from sources on the general history of the University and from files pertaining to the departments of economics; history; political science; and sociology, with which anthropology was once united. Despite the importance of several other departments to the social sciences, they have been neglected because the materials from which their histories must be written could not be examined in time to be used in these notes. [p. 159] What is said here should be thought of as heuristic rather than definitive history.

 

In the Beginning

When John D. Rockefeller, Sr. , made his first gift to the American Baptist Education Society in the interest of a “University of Chicago”, he undoubtedly intended to accomplish more than the resurrection of the moribund Baptist college which had borne the name; but he deliberately refused to specify what the institution should be academically. Most of his advisers believed that university departments should be built up slowly upon a collegiate foundation, and one of Rockefeller’s friends emphatically insisted that Chicago was no place at all for a great Rockefeller university. Although the latter opinion was extreme, early caution was well warranted. The Founder’s princely gift of $600, 000 fell far short of the requirements of a university endowment, and when the Rockefeller benefactions became imperial, they did not overtake the needs of the University for years. From the beginning admiration for academic enterprise and for great enterprisers was tempered by a higher regard for gradualism then we may always realize. “The development of the university, ” wrote President Harry Pratt Judson in 1919, “has followed conservative lines, each new plan being studied with care in advance, and coming naturally from what has already been made permanent.” But this is jumping beyond the founding of the University. Early conservatism was all but shattered by the advent of William Rainey Harper as first president-elect. Before he had accepted office, Rockefeller made a second gift in part to finance the beginning of graduate work. The collegiate era of Chicago history was indeed brief. Harper quickly drafted a comprehensive university plan, which appeared in print as the famous Official Bulletins. They are sufficient evidence of Harper’s acute awareness of the institution as a university. The Founder’s second gift brought out in Harper the same academic evangelism which had swept the minds of older Americans when they contemplated the sight of a beloved [p. 160] nation without full means of intellectual grace. (It is perhaps no accident that Harper used the analogy of religion and its institutions to explain what a university is.) This fruit of an earlier anxiety over the inferiority of American education provided one seed of that corporate self-consciousness which is said to be a mark of the University of Chicago.

According to Harper’s original plan, the University was to have three divisions — namely, university extension, the university publications work, and the university proper. The last was to include academies, undergraduate colleges, several professional schools, and the graduate school. Unlike the John Hopkins and Clark University, Chicago did not play down collegiate activity despite the fact that research was encouraged from the beginning. Moreover, undergraduate study in the last two years was to be carried on in connection with graduate study. The work of the non-professional segment of the university proper was distributed between departments which were independent of each other, or so one must infer from the absence of any provision for the grouping of departments into “schools.” In this Chicago differed from Columbia where sociology, history, government, and economics belonged in a school of political science. True, the departments fall together in the Register; but there is no evidence that this grouping had an important intellectual, administrative, or budgetary role. Work in the departments was to supervised, in general, by a “head”; and instruction was to be given by a hierarchy of officers from head professor down to scholar through twelve grades (!). The “head” of each department was given special status, even above other professors. The heads were to conduct “the Club or Seminar” of each department and to edit any papers or journals to be published by the University. The Official Bulletins do not specify particular departments presumably because Harper did not wish to commit the University on this point; for as the Bulletins were appearing, he was negotiating with a number of prospective faculty members over possible departmental arrangements. Harper’s way of putting flesh on the skeleton of the University was to find men who had the intellectual power and [p. 161] administrative skill necessary to create departments. First and foremost he sought men — men of a particular type, which Harper himself exemplified. When he was born in 1856, there was an infinitesimal demand in the United States for “university” professors as distinguished from the “college” professors of the pastoral era of American academic life. The United States had its scholarly professors; but few of them were employed to do research or to train researchers. Even as late as 1870, the American university heavily committed to research was non-existent. Then, in the remarkably short interval in which Harper passed from boyhood to professorial status at the Morgan Park Theological Seminary, and later at Yale, fledgling universities began to appear and to appoint professors because of their achievements or promise as investigators and organizers of investigation. The latter qualification was as important as the former. The universities needed men who could not only explore on their own, but also found colonies of researchers. If possible, the professor ought to attract a lay following into the fields he opened. Just so, Harper brought new insight to Hebraic research, attracted a cluster of advanced students, edited a learned journal, and created popular interest by conducting summer and correspondence courses and by editing a semi-popular journal. Without the formal title, Harper was a “head professor” at Yale before he came to Chicago, where the appointment of such professors became a foundation stone of his academic policy.

The appointment of head professors had very real uses. Once it was decided to put the University at the top of American higher education on its first day, Harper had the labors of Hercules to perform. (At least he did not have to clear out an old stable.) So it must have been extremely convenient as well as entirely natural to find men to whom he could delegate the responsibility of creating departments with all that entailed in the way of finding instructors, awarding fellowships, deciding on courses to be offered, selecting books and equipment, etc. Like field officers, the head professors could relieve the commanding general of tasks which he could not have completed by himself in any event. If the system [p. 162] was to work, however, the heads had to be men who were more than administrative clerks; they had to be men of initiative and independent judgment, which meant that Harper’s lieutenants defended their own powers stoutly, even against Harper himself on occasion. This was all the more true because Harper wanted to build up the prestige of the University by appointing men who already had established reputations. These men were precisely those who could most easily go elsewhere to serve the University’s rivals if they fell out seriously with the President. It is not pure fantasy to compare the relationship between Harper and the head professors to the feudalism of the marches. These professors were barons on the frontiers of knowledge, bound to the central authority by a loyalty which was usually strong because the person who represented authority possessed a remarkable capacity for inspiring friendship for himself and confidence in the destiny of the institution. Men would resist particular acts of alleged interference on his part and yet find themselves willing to remain in his service. The price of loyalty was the assurance that each department would have autonomy.2

The appointment of head professors was accompanied by some risk, — not so much from the authoritarianism to be read into the head professors’ position as from the premium which was put upon the very autonomy which made the system work. There is little evidence that the “concentrated responsibility”3 of the head professors affected the individual instructor’s freedom adversely. Harper declared officially that no instructor would be asked to separate himself from the University because his [p. 163] views upon a particular question differed from those of another member of the same department, even though that member were the head; and the case of Thorstein Veblen supports the statement. Veblen’s approach to economics was vastly different from that of J. Laurence Laughlin, head of the department of political economy; so one might suppose that Veblen lived in constant danger of losing his post because of the head professor’s displeasure. Actually, Laughlin brought Veblen to the University and protected him from his critics. If Laughlin’s headship made any difference in what became a very delicate and painful situation, that difference worked in favor of the individual scholar.

No, the system of head professors was risky because it jeopardized the unity of spirit which Harper strove to create. For at the same time that he sought to release the energies of individuals, he tried to bring a sense of community into being. It was certainly endangered by the departmentalism which his method of building a university produced. The original departments appear to have been the institutional product of the head professors’ judgments on the needs and potentialities of the fields in which they were severally interested; for the heads were intellectual as well as administrative leaders. As the backgrounds and mentalities of the heads varied, so the departments differed from each other. The spectrum of diversity ran from the historian, von Hoist, who came from Germany where history had long been a distinct academic discipline, to Albion Small, whose field of sociology had yet to acquire academic prestige. (That it did is due perhaps more to Small’s academic statesmanship than to anything else.) Interestingly enough, Small and Laughlin as well as von Hoist had had intimate contact with historical scholarship. Small did his graduate work in a John Hopkins seminar which dealt with history as well as with political economy and government, and Laughlin wrote his thesis on Anglo-Saxon law for Henry Adams. The fact that somewhat similar training did not produce like-mindedness suggests the complexity of the situation.

Harper himself was fully aware of the shortcomings of departmental organization. It was convenient but far from perfect in its effects.

[p. 164] In these days, (said Harper in 1898) as a matter of fact, the distinction between Botany and Zoology, between Latin and Greek, between Political Science, Political Economy and History, is a distinction which is purely artificial. The best work is accomplished by the man who disregards all such artificial lines and deals with problems. Every important problem will carry the student of it into half a dozen departments and he must be free to work without hindrance. The time will come when these so-called distinctions of departments will disappear. . . There should be a better correlation of the work in closely allied departments. The separation of departments has been too greatly emphasized by some of the heads of departments. Certain divisions of work have been isolated to a greater or less extent from other divisions closely related. This is due to the fact that no sufficient effort has been made by the heads of closely related departments to work out together the plans of instruction.

The evil of poor correlation of departments appeared to the President to be greatest in the natural sciences; but harmony was imperfect in the social sciences. As far as one can see, none of the head professors insisted that his discipline was the only avenue to the truth. Although the word “interdisciplinary” was unknown, the idea behind it would surely have received a hearing from the several head professors. Yet integration of the disciplines lay far beyond the realm of possibility as the University was originally organized. To arrange perfect harmony, one would have had to perform a task as difficult as the consolidation of ethnic groups with diverse pasts and all the occasion for friction that propinquity makes frequent.

If the social science departments had developed slowly with the partition of a single course, perhaps the old moral philosophy, there might have been more unity in the University; but that condition was contrary to the facts of the University’s history. Had Harper appointed but one head professor to create a single school of social or political science like John W. Burgess’ school at Columbia, the departments within the school might have possessed a family resemblance; but obviously Harper made no such appointment and perhaps he never thought of trying to do so. If he had, perhaps the University’s life would have been less rich in sources of intellectual stimulation than it was. Conceivably, the several head professors might have been brought together in [p. 165] one seminar like the one at Hopkins; and assuredly the pyrotechnics would have been thrilling for the students. But the head professors were not brought together as teachers. A trace of interdepartmentalism does appear in the organization of the four departments as the “historical group” in 1899. It concerned itself with library problems and the correlation of courses.4

The salaries of the head professors corresponded in size to their preeminence in departmental affairs. A profile of salaries in a given department would have resembled a pyramid rather than a mesa. One reason for this situation was, of course, the necessity of paying premium prices if the University was to attract” very able men whose talents were appreciated elsewhere. In reaching for Albion Small, for instance, Harper was competing with Colby College for its president. Admittedly the competition was not purely mercenary. Harper offered a head professor not only high salary, but an opportunity to develop the resources of a learned or scientific field. At a time when research often lived on short rations, it must have been exhilarating to be approached by Harper with the news that the University of Chicago would pay handsomely for the direction of research. But other universities were also bidding for men like the head professors at Chicago. Herbert B. Adams declined an invitation to Chicago because he already had at the John Hopkins what the head professors were promised at Chicago. So, from the beginning, the University had to labor to get and keep the kind of men it wanted to lead the departments. It would appear indeed that Harper was occasionally led by his enthusiasm to say things which were understood by his hearers to be promises of research arrangements which could [p. 166] not be brought altogether into being. The early brilliance of the University is clouded by some disappointments and even bitterness.

Research as well as teaching, it appears, was paid for out of the general University income appropriated for salaries. Special University funds for research and outside grants were beyond the horizon of the future. Indeed, Mr. Rockefeller’s second gift and subsequent gifts were presumably made on the principle that research would be paid for out of general funds to supplement regular tuition income. It was the policy to ask all professors to carry a regular teaching load, but that part of his salary which was paid in consideration of his obligation to do research was in effect his research grant.

But what were the social science departments, so organized and financed, supposed to do? Harper cast a university in the role of servant to mankind and emphasized the contribution which a university ought to make to democracy as spokesman, mediator, and philosopher. Like prophets, members of the University were supposed to address not only their academic colleagues, but the mass of men as well; like priests they were supposed to live above the conflict of human interests but they were to be active in mitigating the strife which divides mankind; and like philosophers they were to seek the laws or principles of democracy. One might suppose that Harper had in mind a division of labor according to which one professor used university extension to address the world and another did “pure” research, for instance on the concentration of wealth, which Harper mentions. This supposition is supported by the partial specialization of duties which did become customary. Yet it never became complete. It is highly significant that Harper did not distinguish sharply between the extension and the diffusion of knowledge. He had that balance of mind which keeps a man from sniffing at popularization or sneering at erudition. He was neither academic demagogue nor prig. The root of his attitude very likely lay in depths of character which one cannot probe historically, but some explanation can be [p. 167] found in the nature of his own specialty, the elucidation of the Old Testament. The truth Harper sought as a scholar lay behind the barriers of a difficult language and complicated texts; but it was a truth which could be found out. Once discovered, however, it would fail of its purpose if all men did not have it to guide their daily lives for the good of their immortal souls. Harper did not, of course, make claims of the supernatural merit of democracy; but he did carry over into his view of mundane affairs not only a belief in the efficacy and availability of truth, but also the twofold conviction that learning was required if men were to have truth and that truth about society must be taken to the men and women who make up society. For the social scientist at the University of Chicago this meant that the President respected both pure research and practical activity and did not expect a professor to act as if the two were mutually exclusive.

 

After the Beginning

Ten years after the University opened, Harper felt that the first exciting work was finished. The task of the future was to keep the University strong and lively without an annual transfusion of the Founder’s wealth to meet current expenses. John D. Rockefeller continued to be deeply interested in the University, but he insisted that the deficits should disappear. The retrenchment of sanguine hopes, if not of actual operations, which this desire made necessary went against the grain of Harper’s nature. He had the genius of the great entrepreneur who dares to combine men and things in brilliant new constellations at a risk which dismays his well-wishers, but he had no gift for careful house-keeping. His successor, Harry Pratt Judson, did command that skill. In remarkably short order, he saved the University from the threat of acute embarassment and perhaps from collapse; and the Founder made his final gift of $10,000,000 payable over ten years. So the President could count upon an annual increase of receipts for the greater part of his administration.

[p. 168] Judson’s personal views on the organization of research are reflected in his response to certain queries put to him by President Hall of Clark, who raised the question among others of prescribing the problem of an investigation before-hand with appropriations for so much for such a purpose:

“We expect work in research to be done normally by all our staff, and to that end we try not to overburden them with teaching. In some cases we have given special inducements to carry on a particular piece of research, by way of relieving the officer in question of a part of his normal duties. We have found no difficulty on that head. I am not in favor of establishing research professorships, but rather of encouraging particular pieces of research when they seem warranted. . . I cannot say that I can forecast the future of research as between universities and special institutions. It must occur in both, and each, doubtless, has its field. It seems to me that investigation of particular value is a matter which cannot be determined by general rules or by departmental lines, but is something wholly personal in character, and dependent on the abilities and ambitions of certain individuals. It is only in that line that I look for a large measure of success.”

For the purpose of supporting research and publication, Judson advocated the creation of a research fund from gifts. No endowment devoted specifically to these matters existed, but such funds were needed. For pressing necessities of instruction or of other things tended to divert funds from research. This general theme was taken up by the Senate Committee on Research, which proposed the creation of a General University Research Foundation and of Special University Research Institutes. The Committee remarked on the establishment of endowed research institutes, separate from universities, as an indication that the typical university organization, such as Chicago’s, was not regarded as being capable of satisfying the research needs of the time. But separate institutes did not provide for a succession of researchers; nor did the separate institutes allow the investigators to maintain continuous organic contact with the entire body of knowledge as represented in a large university. The expression of these sentiments, however, did not lead immediately to much action except perhaps to the creation of the Norman Wait Harris Foundation.

[p. 169] Quite early in the Judson administration, the government of the departments was changed. In 1909, a faculty committee took a hard look at the system of departmental organization around heads of departments. (In 1899, the title “Head Professor” had become “Professor and Head of Department. “) The facts upon which the Committee based its recommendations are not specified; but conditions in the departments of political economy, political science, history, and sociology and anthropology suggest the situation which called for scrutiny. When the University opened, the principle of “concentrated responsibility” corresponded roughly with the differences in experience between the head professors and the other members of the departments. With possibly only one exception, no member of a department who was not a head professor had had such experience that he could claim that a top salary and standing was denied him unjustly. The special provision for head professors was not working hardship. By 1908-09, however, the rungs of the ladder just short of the top were filling up. Ten of the thirty-nine members of the four departments were full professors, which meant that six had gone as far as they could go and were still in an inferior position. This situation was, of course, the natural result of the growth of the departments and of promotions in the lower and middle rank; but the situation was nonetheless unsatisfactory in the eyes of the committee of 1909. It believed that with the growth of the University it was becoming increasingly important that the system of organization should make possible the securing and retaining of as many men of the first grade of ability as the needs of the fields and the resources of the University permitted, and that the system should be sufficiently flexible to favor the employment of each member of a department in the kind of work to which he was best suited. The existing system failed to meet the first condition because only one member of a department could attain the maximum rank and salary, and it failed to meet the second condition because maximum rank and salary seemed to be connected exclusively with administrative responsibilities. In the words of a second committee commissioned to rephrase the report of the [p. 170] first, the existing system, as it was commonly understood, operated “to make it difficult to secure or retain men of high ability and recognized eminence for those professorships which are regarded as subordinate.” The same committee pointed out that the policy of assigning one man a maximum salary and requiring him to perform as an administrator might be based on either of two grounds. The larger salary and the title might be accorded in recognition of general eminence. In that case the assignment of administrative duties to the head would seem to proceed on the presumption that the most eminent man is the person to administer the department. But the most eminent man might not be well adapted to administration, and even if he was capable in that direction, it might seem unwise for the University to use his time in that way rather than in research. Or if the larger salary might be attached to the position primarily as special compensation for administration, then that appeared to place an unduly high valuation upon administration as compared with research and teaching. The way which the University took to escape this dilemma was to replace heads of departments with chairmen and to grant whole departments a larger share in the determination of policy than they enjoyed before.

Although in some cases chairmanships actually differed less from head professorships than the reformers seem to have intended, the constitutional changes of 1909 raise the question, did each department cease gradually to be the lenthened shadow of a man, if that is not too strong a phrase to describe the original system? One of the nicest problems of all for the critic of university policy and organization is to discover how much of the influence of a professor of unusually great mind and force of personality is increased or curtailed by the formal system within which he works. We can all think of men who were “head professors” without benefit of title or special powers under the statutes. Without attempting to make a final judgment, one can hazard the suggestion that the reform in departmental organization did work to undermine the conditions which favored [p. 171] domination by a single man in each department but that it did so only indirectly. The new system no more prevented a vigorous man from influencing his colleagues than the old system had obligated the heads of departments to rule arbitrarily, but the reform did make room at the top of each department for as many men as the University could afford to pay at the highest rates. Had this not happened, the frustration of men just short of the top would have been immense as departments grew in size and more and more men were promoted through the middle ranks. Can anyone doubt that despair and resentment would have alienated the best men first? It was indeed hard enough as it was to keep good men in the face of retrenchment. Needless to say, however, the University did not lose all its very able men; and it managed in the course of time to increase their number. To say what this meant is to walk on the sands of conjecture. Increases in the number of first-rate scholars may have encouraged an intellectual eclecticism precluding the kind of leadership which one man may be able to exercise at the moment a department is organized.

But was something to replace the heads of departments as a source of stimulation as the old system disintegrated? As we have seen, Judson placed his confidence in the individual scholars’ abilities and ambitions; and it would appear that he usually let the organization of research rest there. In 1915 a Senate committee recommended a grouping of departments which may have prepared men’s minds a little for later inter-departmental activity; but the committee spoke only of the “administrative purposes” to be served by its recommendation. There was no mention of consultation on research or of cooperative sponsorship of research.

The emphasis on administration in the 1915 recommendations is typical of the Judson regime. The University ran smoothly and efficiently under the skillful guidance of the President; but it appears to have been propelled forward more by momentum than by the generation of new forces. The University was also more stable and more like other universities than it had been in [p. 172] Harper’s time. It was only natural that events would be less dramatic from day to day once the essential plan of the University had been put into effect than they had been when everything remained to be done. The longevity of heads of departments may also have had something to do with the tone of the Judson administration. History had three heads between 1892 and the time of Judson’s retirement, but political science and sociology retained their original heads of department until 1922 and 1924 respectively. Political economy had its original head of department until 1916. (Incidentally, political science had but two chief officers from 1892 to 1941 and sociology had but two from 1892 to 1940. The phenomenon of rapid turnover in chairmanship is recent.) Led as it was by veterans, Chicago was no longer a freshman university. Its virtues and its failings were those of settled maturity.

 

The Day Before Yesterday

The early Twenties was a time of protean discontent over the state of the University and of the social sciences. One cause of anxiety was the erosion of time for research. It will be recalled that Harper was decidedly interested in undergraduate education and that it was not entirely separated from graduate work at the University. It will also be recalled that instructors at all levels of the faculty were expected as a matter of policy to carry a regular teaching load. In theory, these policies did not inhibit the pursuit of knowledge; but in practice, they produced a reaction against collegiate instruction as its demands appeared to eat away the opportunity to do research. Also capable research men seemed to be falling prey to a mechanical application of the rules governing teaching assignments and to be carrying too much instruction of graduate students. Beyond this, salary schedules were comparatively low. This adversity sharpened awareness of research as a mission of a university just at the time when the growth of independent research institutes threw the future of university research into a state of uncertainty.

[p. 173] Albion Small, then Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Literature, was especially worried, both over the lack of needed stimulants within the graduate schools of the University and also over the aimlessness of the social sciences. The graduate schools, he said were “under-energizing” chiefly because they were amorphous groups of autonomous departments. The deans were little more than proctors. With a change in the constitution of the University, however, they might be given some opportunity to show initiative in the performance of cooperative and strategic functions. The departments would then be stimulated, Small asserted, by more direct contact through the dean with the entire economy of each graduate school. Turning to the departments of the social sciences in particular, Small observed there a spirit of “prophetic unrest”:

“Everyone believes that his department, and social science as a whole, has a mission; but at no time since the work of the University began has there been in the group such evident dissatisfaction with its own inability to define that mission in a way that will command general assent. . . We have not yet threshed out the question — What for? To what end? . . . Some of our own number, and many others both inside and outside the academic class, charge social scientists in general with wasting their time and resources upon futilities, instead of concentrating their abilities upon discovery of something worthwhile. We are under indictment for resting content with satisfying smug pedantic curiosities, instead of contributing to the world’s knowledge of the way of salvation. . . I report this [Small continued after further comment in the same vein] not in sorrow but with rejoicing. I regard it as a notably healthy situation. We are first of all unsatisfied with ourselves, and this disturbance is not likely to diminish until we can give a more coherent account of our reasons for existence than is possible at present.”

Other voices were raised on the same general subject. Charles E. Merriam called the President’s attention to the fact that the department of Political Science had languished for many years because of lack of a leader under the most distressing circumstances. Merriam had in the forefront of his mind the conception of a new study of politics. He thought in terms of investigation which called upon many disciplines, and he anticipated the development of cooperative activity. “Science,” he had [p. 174] written in 1921, “is a great cooperative enterprise in which many intelligences must labor together. There must always be wide scope for the spontaneous and unregimented activity of the individual, but the success of the expedition is conditioned upon some general plan of organization. Least of all can there be anarchy in social science, or chaos in the theory of political order.” Leon C. Marshall and William H. Spencer urged that the instructors in economics and business should intensively cultivate the borderlands between economics on one side and business, technology, psychology, the evolution of institutional life, law, and home economics on the other. Earlier a committee on the Harris Foundation had envisaged it as the beginning of an institute of international relations which would be the nucleus for a gathering of interested departments.

During his brief but energetic administration, President Ernest D. Burton mounted a frontal attack on the causes of discontent. He set his face against the abolition of undergraduate instruction; but he accepted the difference between undergraduate and graduate work as a fundamental principle. His policy was to develop each type of study according to its own character and requirements without seeking lines of compromise between the two. Clearly he did not intend to preside over the liquidation of the college or of research. He did see that both were in danger of death, the one from violence the other from malnutrition.

Through several years the college was studied and reorganized without much intermission until it reached a state where its social science courses were severed from those of the departments. So presently the members of the departments were relieved of the excessive burden of undergraduate teaching and of the teaching itself. At the same time, the rigors of an overly mechanical application of the rules on teaching loads appear to have been relaxed across the University while the endowment of distinguished service professorships further improved the lot of research men. A general fund campaign also held out promise of larger resources to feed research. It is worth notice that in [p. 175] building up the social sciences Burton preferred strengthening the departments to establishing the School of Politics which Merriam advocated.

These policies were variations of a tonic that the physicians of research had been prescribing for years: lots of fresh endowment money and frequent vacations from class-room duty. This was the classic remedy for languishing investigation, and it was one which the University had tried with great success in the past. A large part of the Rockefeller gifts consisted of additions to endowment without which, it seems safe to say, the University would have been quite incapable of attracting and holding the investigators who gave the University its reputation for erudition. When the last installment of the Founder’s final gift was paid in, the University had to rely very heavily upon other donors and upon the foundations, several of which were of course established by John D. Rockefeller. Large segments of his fortune were to come to the University, but not directly from him personally. It happened at this juncture that the foundations showed less inclination to give to endowment and more inclination to make project grants than they had earlier. The community was invited to contribute to research by the stipulation in some grants that funds would be released only when they had been matched by contributions from civic or other bodies with a particular problem to be studied.

The first of the project grants to the social sciences at the University came from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial. Its director was Beardsley Ruml, who had been at the University of Chicago from 1915 to 1917. Before his appointment as director of the newly founded Foundation, little Rockefeller money had been spent in direct support of research in the social sciences largely because Frederick Gates had no faith in its importance. Ruml, however, represented a very different point of view, and he set about to find what the historian of the Rockefeller Foundation has called “strategic undertakings for financial support as well as opportunities for dramatizing the importance of social studies.” The First World War had already forced men to see the need for all sorts of reliable statistics on the state of society, [p. 176] and organizations like the Brookings Institution and the National Bureau of Economic Research were beginning to function.5

So in 1923, the Memorial offered support for study of the University’s local community. This area had by no means been ignored by the social scientists of the University. The sociologists had, for instance, spoken in 1894 of the city of Chicago as one of the most complete social laboratories in the world, and the economists had remarked on the opportunities which the city offered for the study of practical economic questions. When in the years after the first grant the interests of researchers led them beyond the limits of the local community, it was found possible to use part of the grants which followed the first to finance research having little or nothing to do with the city. So the University could accept project grants without departing from the field of its own interests. It could also enter heartily into the organization of interdepartmental agencies to administer research funds and to conduct joint investigations because the parochialism of some aspects of departmentalism had already been detected. In short, the grants did not work an unwanted revolution. Even if the change in finance and administration had been accepted only under duress, it would not have touched all investigation; for much research continued under the old dispensation. The grants did, however, alter the metabolism of the social sciences. The financial nutriment of much research came to the scholar through channels which were new.

The first of the new interdepartmental organizations was the Local Community Research Committee, set up to administer the grant from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial. Originally this committee, like an earlier one on the Harris Foundation, was composed of departmental representatives; but it presently ceased to be so composed when the principle of departmental representation was abandoned. As a series of grants materialized and as the concerns of the committee proliferated beyond local geographical limits, the phrase “Local Community Research” gave way to “Social Science Research” so that the name of the committee corresponded to its broadened charge. At this point, then, a general committee on research in the social sciences became a fixture of the University. In effect this committee related the departments to the general economy of study in the social sciences somewhat as Albion Small had hoped a dean would bring the departments into touch with the economy of the arts and literature side of the University. The creation of the Division of the Social Sciences with its own dean worked to the same end. The financing of research no longer lay wholly within the realms of departmental appropriations and of income derived from student fees and dividends from endowment. This, it should be noted, did not increase as speedily as it should have in order to satisfy the requirements of the theory that income in the form of temporary grants ought presently to be replaced by income from permanent capital.

With renewed concern for research came a need for more equipment and the in-gathering of research activities to one building. For years the departments in the “historical group” had a library of their own, but no building to themselves. Thanks to the Rockefeller Foundation, in 1929, the social scientists of the University had the pleasure of attending the dedication of the Social Science Research Building. Today, when classes habitually meet in this building, one easily forgets that it was not intended for classrooms at all. Its opening was truly a dedication — to research. . Behind the thought that the building was a laboratory lay the conviction that social science had so expanded in the material which the investigator had to control that special and elaborate equipment was absolutely necessary, if social science was to live up to its ambition. The investigator also needed the assistance of technicians and stenographers, for whom provision was made in the planning of the building. Social science research was passing from the handicraft to the industrial stage.

But what of the individual scholar: could he ignore the shift of finance and organization with the serenity of the farmer who [p. 178] cultivates his own rich acres despite the tilting of continents? As no final answer can be extracted from such notes as these, suffice it here to review the record in its bearings on three of the conditions of productive intellectual labor — time, stimulation, and liberty to follow the subtle promptings of imagination.

Harper used the regular funds of the University to buy time for colonies of scholars. To be paid to investigate society must in itself have been enormously stimulating at a time when university appointments were still something of a novelty. The head professors were challenged by the terms of their office to open up new fields of knowledge; and their associates shared in the opportunity without losing their intellectual identity. Harper indeed had a gift for persuading even the most callow student that his mind really mattered, and Harper communicated to his colleagues a deep sense of the mission of a university in a democratic society. He was not wholly successful, however, in creating the spirit of unity which he thought a university should have. Like many other leaders, he faced the difficulties of arranging a working union of individualism and community life. The departments which he brought into being were more or less self-contained groups of men possessed of a vested interest in particular lines of endeavor. Once a colony of researchers occupies such a position and is given the right of self-perpetuation through autonomous action on appointments and promotions, it cannot easily be persuaded to change its course even when an outside observer may believe that it has already run that course. The compensating advantage of departmental permanence and autonomy lies in the security they provide the member of a department in his pursuit of knowledge according to his own lights. If a man’s investigations come into question, the jury is composed of his immediate associates and peers. Next to a private income, then, a tenure appointment in a stable department is the best guarantee of one’s right to follow curiosity wherever it leads.

This inheritance from the Harper administration was the center of the Judson policy. By stabilizing the University financially and by increasing its endowments, Judson built defenses [p. 179] around the security of the individual scholar, on whom he placed responsibility for initiating research. The reform of departmental organization and salary scales at least in theory relieved research men from administrative routine and gave the junior members of a department hope that the full incentives of premium salaries and prestige would not be denied them at the height of their careers. The growth of teaching obligations, however, put an unwelcome lien on the researcher’s time. Also Judson does not appear to have been able to provide by himself or to create agencies to provide the stimulation which had marked the Harper regime. The University by no means lost sight of research, but more than one of its members felt a sense of frustration on behalf of investigation by the end of the Judson administration.

In the Twenties and after, the allowance of time for research increased markedly; and the investigator received many varied stimulants. New money and new organizations appeared to facilitate the study of the social sciences. By the side of the old departments arose a cluster of interdepartmental committees as well as the office of the Dean. The Social Sciences Research Building served to house new colonies of researchers with their equipment. The groups supported by foundation and other grants were indeed reminiscent of the infancy of the departments. Here again were companies of men and women drawn together by a common interest in exploration under the leadership of seminal and enthusiastic minds. The new colonies did not, however, have a claim on the regular budget. Investigation might be immensely stimulating while it lasted; but the investigators could not assume that funds would continue to materialize. Also there is evidence that the deference to the needs of the community which was associated with some projects inclined some individuals away from established interests. Personal scholarship lay in some danger of being overshadowed; but not all projects constituted such a threat and not all research by any means was supported by grants. The economy of the social sciences had become decidedly mixed.

[p. 180] Superficially the conduct of research was much more complicated and unstable after the first World War than it had been in other days. It would be a mistake, however, to create a myth of an Arcadian age when the life of the investigator was altogether simple and secure. Each period of the history of the social sciences at Chicago has had its tensions, and each has produced a balance of policies and practices which can be reduced to no single formula. One task of self-study, therefore, is to ascertain how the balance has shifted through the years.

 

[NOTES]

  1. This document was prepared by Richard J. Storr of the Department of History at the request of the Self Study Committee. The author wishes to express his thanks to his assistants, Mrs. Vera Laska, Mr. William R. Usellis, and Mr. James S. Counelis, for the special trouble to which they have gone for the sake of this paper.
  2. Professor George Pierson has pointed out that the government of Yale College at the turn of the century was baronial, William G. Sumner being the best known of the barons. Before one concludes, however, that Yale and Chicago were alike, one should , note that such esprit de corps as Yale had probably differed from the spirit at Chicago. The President of Yale could assume that many members of his faculty would unite at least as loyal alumni of the institution. He had respect for tradition on his side. Harper could draw only on the sense of unity which a common future rather than a common past may inspire.
  3. Andrew C. MacLaughlin’s phrase.
  4. In 1902, the phrase “Social Sciences” appears in the group’s name. The acceptance of the earlier name has an interesting — and for the academic politician, an instructive — history. The report of the organizing committee of 1899 was approved without change except for one clause, the proposal that the unit be called the ‘”historical group.” No alternative name, however, received official sanction so that the secretary of the committee continued to use the offensive label, presumably because he had to call the group something. By default, then, “historical group” came into common usage.
  5. Raymond B. Fosdick, The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation (New York. 1952). p. 195.

 

Source: Richard J. Storr, A Report on the Behavioral Sciences at the University of Chicago. Appendix Document D of Self-Study Committee. October 1, 1954.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard

Harvard. Early Evolution of Behavioral and Social Science Departments. Mason Report.

Today I generate another posting from the Mason Committee Report The Behavioral Sciences at Harvard published in June, 1954. Here we have a quick trot through Harvard’s own history of behavioral and social sciences, the splitting of some of its divisions into departments and the creation of new departments and schools. It is an extremely convenient collection of names and dates to help us see where economics  and economists fit into the larger academic community during the first half century or so following the emergence of political economy and government at Harvard College. You can tell an economist chaired the committee, it’s so much about us. I have added boldface to help readers of this blog find stuff they might (should) be interested in.

________________________

[p. 18]

HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AT HARVARD

The future historian of Harvard will note that a new term began to be prominent in University documents during 1953-1954. A reorganization of course offerings in the Graduate School of Education created the “behavioral sciences” as a prominent new rubric. Reports in the Business School allude to present and planned developments in the “behavioral sciences” and this survey utilizes the new term as an inclusive category to define the area of its inquiry.

If the term is of recent birth, Harvard’s activities in the area of the behavioral sciences certainly are not. Taking the loose definition of the behavioral sciences, which we have adopted (at least provisionally) for this survey, their cultivation at Harvard goes back at least to the emergence of Harvard as a modern university in the second half of the nineteenth century. At least some of the behavioral sciences shared in the rapid growth of Harvard to university stature at the end of the nineteenth century. The reorganization of 1890, establishing the system of Divisions and Departments of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, brought into existence a Division of History, Government, and Economics. Prior to this time there had been instruction in all of these fields, and Harvard could already point to distinguished scholars in some parts of them. History, after a “false dawn” in 1838 when Jared Sparks was appointed to the new McLean Professorship of Ancient and Modern History, was rapidly coming to strength under the inspiration of Henry Adams and the young men bringing new methods and standards from the German universities. Economics had begun its emergence from moral philosophy in the early Seventies when anxiety that sound currency doctrines be heard in Harvard College led to the appointment of Charles F. Dunbar as Professor of Political Economy. The study of government was comfortably developing in the work of a group of historians who were predominantly concerned with constitutional and institutional history.

1892 Dunbar
Charles F. Dunbar

Today the Division of History, Government, and Economics has been reduced to a shadowy holding company for three powerful and [p. 19] autonomous departments. In 1890-1891, the situation was different. Prior to the reorganization, the Harvard College faculty had indeed been subdivided into departments, but they were very loose and informal bodies, so casual in their operation that regular meetings were not held nor formal records kept. After 1891, a new structure of departments established itself firmly, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences quickly became the nexus of self-contained subdivision that it is today. History and government naturally fell together in a department first labeled that of “History and Roman Law” which in 1895 became the Department of History and Government.1 The split of this joint department into the present Departments of History and Government took place considerably later, in 1911. A Department of Political Economy was in existence from 1879, and economics courses enjoyed a separate listing under this heading until the present Department of Economics became established in 1892.

Within this evolving framework, Harvard quickly pushed to a place of prominence in studies in this area. In history the dominant pattern of activity was clear:

“Institutional History was uppermost at Harvard in the last third of the nineteenth century. Maine and Stubbs in England, Waitz in Germany, Fustel de Coulangcs in France, initiated an eager search into the origins and development of political institutions, believing therein to find the true explanation of human progress. Henry Adams introduced the fashion to Harvard. To take a sample year, 1890-91, there was hardly a history course in the catalogue, save History I, and those given by Emerton, which did not smack of Verfassungsgeschichte. There was Constitutional Government (later Government 1), Constitutional History of England since George I, and Principles of Constitutional Law, by Professor Macvane; English Constitutional History from 1485 to George I, and Early Medieval History “with special reference to Institutions,” by Mr. Bendelari; French History to Louis XIV, with the same emphasis, by Dr. Snow; Constitutional History, Constitutional Development, and Federal Government by Professor Hart; Early American Institutions, by Professor Channing; and three more courses on English Constitutional History by Dr. Gross. Certainly no institutions in the United States or England today would offer so much constitutional history. . . “2

The doctoral dissertations accepted before 1900 in history and government reflect this concentration of interest. In a total of thirty-one accepted during the period 1873-1900, twelve were in United States national and colonial history, ten were in English institutional history, three were in “government and international law.”3 While Harvard initially lagged behind Johns Hopkins in its production of Ph.D.’s, it was early in the field, and its staff played a prominent role in the professionalization of historical study. They were active in the establishment of the American Historical Association (1884) and can claim [p. 20] to have been the prime movers in starting the American Historical Review. The intimate connection between political science and history which was fostered by the joint department and the nature of historical studies in this early period served to give the study of political science a strong historical cast. But instruction in political science extended beyond clearly historical courses, and Government 1 by 1900 was established as one of the great introductory courses with more than four hundred students.

After beginnings in the Seventies with the appointment of Charles F. Dunbar as Professor of Political Economy, Harvard’s work in economics quickly took on strength in the Eighties. The year 1886 is notable for two events: the establishment of the first professional economics journal in the English language, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which has been continuously published under the auspices of the Department since that date; and the appointment of Frank W. Taussig, who became perhaps the central figure in a generation of growth in Harvard economics. As Professor Taussig modestly remarks in his own survey of department history, after 1886, the Department of Political Economy “was able to present a substantial offering.”4 From the first, the work of the Department showed a strong concern with contemporary issues of public policy, but it also reflected the late nineteenth-century concern with economic history in the appointments of William J. Ashley (1892) and Edwin F. Gay. Economics 1 took its place alongside History 1 and Government 1 as one of the famous introductory courses and like them attracted more than four hundred students by 1900.5 A temporary dip in activity occurred shortly after the turn of the century, but the foundations were laid for an exuberant later development.

The history of the other behavioral sciences in this early period is more varied, tentative, and uncertain. Anthropology got off to an early start with the Peabody bequest in 1866 establishing the Peabody Museum and the Peabody Professorship of American Archaeology and Ethnology. The terms of the bequest were such that part of it had to be left to accumulate until it had reached a specified level. The building which now houses the Peabody Museum was not begun until 1876, and the Professorship was not filled until 1887 (by Frederick Ward Putnam).6 The gathering of collections, however, began almost immediately after the Peabody bequest, and the first Report dates from 1868. By the Nineties the Museum collections had grown impressively, [p. 21] and the University acquired a major resource when the Museum became an integral part of it in 1897. Instruction in anthropology was almost lacking before 1890, there being no undergraduate courses and only a few graduate students. The reorganization of 1890 established a Division of American Archaeology and Ethnology, but no regular course in general anthropology was offered until 1894-1895. During the Nineties the Division shared in the general expansion of the University, increasing its staff and offerings so that by 1903 its old title was inappropriate, and it became the Department of Anthropology which still exists. The Nineties saw the beginning of a long series of archaeological and ethnological expeditions in the Americas and elsewhere which have enriched the collections of the Museum and the literature of the field. Studies and instruction in physical anthropology began at this time and have continued to the present day.

Psychology at Harvard is relatively old. Professor Boring when interviewed in the course of this survey has emphasized the point:

“America was very early in the development of experimental psychology, and the development was centered largely at Harvard. James had a very small laboratory as early as Wundt, actually — that is, in 1875. It is true that Germany led the world in experimental psychology in the 1890’s, but there was a great push in America to get psychological laboratories started, and I would say that they lagged behind Germany by less than ten years. In America there was a laboratory developed at Johns Hopkins in 1883, and ours here at Harvard officially began in 1892, although, as I said, there was a small laboratory before that.”

William James not only began experimental studies in psychology at an early date; in 1875 he offered a course in the Relations between Physiology and Psychology, and in the following year he presented another psychology course under the label of Natural History 2. His enthusiasm for experimental psychology led him to raise the necessary funds for the official establishment of the Psychology Laboratory in 1892. He did not, however, want to devote himself primarily to this work, and at his instigation Dr. Hugo Muensterberg was brought from Freiburg, first temporarily (in 1892), then after a brief interval, as a permanent Professor of Psychology in 1897. The early years of the new century saw important additions to the staff (in E. B. Holt and Robert M. Yerkes) and the availability of new space for the laboratories in Emerson Hall (1905). Instruction in psychology grew rapidly, but no independent department appeared. In 1913 psychology courses won separate listing, and the title of the sheltering department was expanded to become the Department of Philosophy and Psychology.

Sociology began its Harvard career in at least two places. The broad concern about social problems which swept over American society in the last third of the nineteenth century and did so much to establish sociology as an academic discipline had its representation at Harvard. The Reverend Francis Greenwood Peabody was giving a course in [p. 22] Practical Ethics in 1881, and from 1883 he offered another in Ethical Theories and Moral Reform. In 1905 it became possible, largely through the benefactions of Andrew Tredway White, to establish instruction of this sort more amply in a separate Department of Social Ethics. The early years of the new department saw expanded work in various types of social problems and a somewhat cautious venture in the direction of professional social work training.7

Not all of Harvard’s early sociology was contained in this lineal ancestor of its present work in sociology. The Department of Economics appointed an assistant professor of sociology in 1893, and after his appointment in 1901 Thomas Nixon Carver regularly gave sociology courses. There was further concern with sociology in connection with such subjects as labor problems, but in summing up the situation to 1929, Professor Taussig found cause to lament Harvard’s failure to “keep pace with the forward movement of economic science … in the field of the social applications or implications of the subject.”

Our sketch thus far has brought the account of the behavioral sciences at Harvard down to the years preceding the first World War. The subsequent years were crowded and active ones, but they have put their imprint so clearly on the present that we may hope to bridge them quickly, reserving details for the contemporary picture presented in Section B.

The organization of the behavioral sciences at Harvard has seen both fission and fusion in the twentieth century. We have noted the splitting off of Social Ethics in 1905 from its parent Department of Philosophy. The next fission was that between Government and History in 1911. In this, as in other organizational changes at Harvard, personalities and special local problems played their role, but the development of the fields themselves made the change a natural one. As Harvard developed rapidly into one of the major American centers of historical study, the heavy concentration in constitutional and institutional history yielded to more diversity. Many of Harvard’s great historians continued to write history in which political events and institutions bulked large, but the range of interests became increasingly catholic. In the history of religions George Foote Moore and others continued and ornamented an established Harvard tradition, Charles H. Haskins ranged over a vast field of medieval studies, Frederick J. Turner brought a sweeping perspective on American democracy, and by 1924 the University had a recognized practitioner of the “new” history in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. An era arrived in which social and economic history took established positions among the common varieties of historical writing so that they now look like older trends in the 1954 picture. A glance at the list of doctoral dissertations submitted [p. 23] to the Department shows a steady and strong growth in American and modern European history paralleling the over-all growth of the Department to a commanding position in the production of the professional historians.8

Since its independent establishment in 1911, the Department of Government has shown continued loyalty to its older union with History. In Charles Mcllwain it had an inspiring continuator of the tradition in English constitutional history and thought. The new Department rapidly expanded its concern with political theory and made new ventures in constitutional and international law, American national, state and local government, comparative government, and international relations. The establishment of the Graduate School of Public Administration in 1937 broadened and strengthened work on matters related to contemporary public policy. A steady rise in the popularity of government as a field of undergraduate concentration brought the Department in the years after World War II into the demanding position of caring for more undergraduates than any other department.

The Department of Economics has continued to grow until it stands today among Harvard’s largest. The concern with the issues of the day which engaged Harvard economists from the first has persisted. The tradition of government consulting blossomed with the work of Taussig, Ripley, Gay and Day during World War I, and in the ill-fated Harvard Economic Service Harvard economists in the Twenties ventured predictions on the course of business conditions. Theoretical economics was pursued with distinction, and a rounded development of the field could be pointed to as a basis for a commonly recognized position of leadership. The Graduate School of Public Administration at its founding could draw on a department with vigorous interests in economic policy, and it in turn provided stimulus and facilities for such work.

Anthropology at Harvard during the early decades of this century continued activities on the wide front established in the Nineties. While Harvard could claim no single figure of such commanding leadership as Boas at Columbia, men like Dixon, Tozzer, and Hooton took major places in the development of American anthropology. A long series of Peabody Museum expeditions extended all over the globe and established Harvard’s position of leadership in Middle American archaeology, Southwestern archaeology, Old World prehistory, and other fields. The large-scale Irish expedition in the Thirties brought widely-known results, and it is perhaps less well remembered that the Yankee City study had its inception in the Department of Anthropology. The Forties brought an important organizational change in the establishment of the Department of Social Relations (1946). This move, which relocated part of the work in [p. 24] Social Anthropology in a new department, has resulted in a substantial expansion of the total numbers of anthropologists on the Harvard staff and of the range and quantity of anthropological investigation.

The chapter on psychology in an official history of Harvard published in 1930 was written by a philosopher, Ralph Parton Perry. Professor Perry notes at the beginning of his account: “Harvard is almost the only American university in which Philosophy and Psychology still constitute a single department.”9 This tardiness of Harvard in following the movement toward an independent status for psychology continued until 1934, when the Department of Psychology was established with Professor Boring as chairman. The lack of separate status had not meant inactivity. The work of the Psychological Laboratory begun under James and Muensterberg continued under the direction of Langfeld (until 1924) and later under Professor Boring. The range of work included that of Yerkes on animal psychology, Troland on physiological optics, and McDougall (after 1920) on social psychology. In 1926 a special bequest for work in abnormal and dynamic psychology led to the establishment of the Psychological Clinic, first under Dr. Morton Prince, and later under Professor Henry A. Murray. The appointment of Professor K. S. Lashley in 1936 brought new work in physiological psychology which was later transferred to the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology, Orange Park, Florida. During the second World War, Harvard’s psychologists became heavily involved in work which led to the present Psycho-Acoustic Laboratory under the direction of Professor S. S. Stevens. Substantial uncertainty as to the ideal arrangements for psychology in the University persisted. A special commission was appointed in 1945, under the chairmanship of Dr. Alan Gregg to examine this question,10 but the work was overtaken by action from another quarter which issued in the founding of the Department of Social Relations in 1946. The consequences of this change will be evidenced at many places in this report; suffice to say here that work in clinical and social psychology was moved to the new department, experimental and physiological psychology remaining in the Department of Psychology.11

Sociology at Harvard continued under the departmental label of Social Ethics until 1929. In the early years of this department (after 1905) the ethical and practical concerns of its founder marked both instruction and research.12 Courses were taught in criminology and penology, radical social movements, juvenile delinquency, housing, immigration, and the typical range of “social problems” found in sociology [p. 25] curricula of this era. After World War I, when Dr. Richard C. Cabot was made Professor of Social Ethics and Chairman of the Department (1920), sociology extended its concerns into philosophical questions and some applied fields, while preserving the ethical orientation. As Professor Cabot’s retirement approached, the status of sociology was subject to a general re-examination. A new Department of Sociology was established under the direction of a committee drawn from various existing departments and including a new appointee, Pitirim A. Sorokin, as Chairman and Professor of Sociology. The new department continued through the Thirties, establishing a strong tradition in theoretical sociology and producing a small but distinguished group of Ph.D.’s. A need for further organizational change was felt by the beginning of the Forties,13 and when the Department of Social Relations emerged in 1946, it had absorbed the old Department of Sociology. Since that time, sociology has been without separate departmental status at Harvard, but it has been strongly represented in the new organization.

This rapid survey could include little more than the most conspicuous and central developments in the behavioral sciences within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. It has neglected many interdisciplinary committees and degree programs, research organizations, area programs, and the growth of such indispensable facilities as the College Library. A great many of the most important special developments have appeared since World War II and are still in existence. As elsewhere throughout the country, much of the history of behavioral sciences at Harvard crowds onto the contemporary scene.

The history we have presented has been largely a history of departments, but we think this not improper. The departments have long been and remain the fundamental units in the organization of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The historical record of the growth of the behavioral sciences at Harvard seems to show a common pattern. Harvard has not been unresponsive to new needs and the development of new fields, but it has moved cautiously, making its first ventures under the shelter of established departments. Government, psychology, and sociology at Harvard thus began under older departments, only slowly winning autonomous status. Ultimately, fields like these have taken their place in an extended roster of the same type of organization which fostered them, namely, as departments on the established model. The record is doubtless a conservative one, substantively and organizationally, but it is perhaps in keeping with President Eliot’s aim of building “securely and slowly, a university in the largest sense.”

Thus far the growth of the behavioral sciences in the professional [p. 26] schools has gone largely unmentioned. Their development will be sketched briefly near the end of Section B, but, to avoid too much repetition, the more detailed historical developments are reserved for Part VI of this report, where each professional school receives a unified and comprehensive analysis. Unless the reader familiarizes himself with the trends in the utilization of the behavioral sciences in the graduate schools of Business, Education, Law, Medicine and Public Health, and Public Administration he will have only a partial image of Harvard’s activities in this field.

[NOTES]

1 Emerton and Morison, in Morison, ed.. Development of Harvard University, 1869-1929 (1930) p. 153, n. 1.

2 Emerton and Morison, op. cit., pp. 159-160.

3 Tabulation in Emerton and Morison, op. cit., p. 164.

4 In Morison, op. cit., p. 190.

5 A graph in Morison (between pp. 194-195) traces the rise in enrollment in these courses. They followed roughly the over-all increase in college enrollment.

6 A delay in the approval of Putnam’s appointment by the Board of Overseers deprived Harvard of the distinction of having the first professorship of American archaeology. (Daniel S. Brinton was appointed Professor of American Archaeology and Linguistics at Pennsylvania in 1886.) Dixon in Morison, p. 211, n. 1.

7 Ford in Morison, op. at., p. 225.

8 Cf. tabulation in Morison, op. cit., p. 164, and data below in Section B.

9 Morison, op. cit., p. 216.

10 Cf. The Place of Psychology in an Ideal University (1947).

11 A contemporary report on the nature and rationale of the split may be found in a joint article by Professors Allport and Boring, American Psychologist, v. 1, 1946, pp. 119-122.

12 Cf. the chapter by James M. Ford in Morison, op. cit., pp. 223-230.

13 The Report of the Visiting Committee to the Department for 1944-1945 remarks, “Obviously, the Department should not be allowed to continue as at present constituted.” Report No. 32, p. 219.

 

Source: The behavioral sciences at Harvard; report by a faculty committee. June, 1954.

Image Source:  Faculty portraits of Professors Taussig, Ripley, Gay and Day from Harvard Album, 1916.