The Stereotype as a Research Tool

Author(s): Irwin Deutscher

Source: Social Forces, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Oct., 1958), pp. 55-60
Published by: University of North Carolina Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2573780
Accessed: 25/11/2010 08:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org
 OCCUPATIONALCONTACTNETWORKS
Durkheim held that the division of labor "creates
among men an entire system of rights and duties
which link them together in a durable way."'2
In this paper we have begun to specify some of the
social dynamics involved in such a system of
12Ibid., p. 406.
THE STEREOTYPE AS A RESEARCH TOOL*
IRWIN DEUTSCHER
CommunityStudies Incorporated
J T IS possiblefor symbolswhichevokestereo-
types to be received through any of the five
senses: the smell of garlic, the clasp of a
calloused hand, the taste of curry, the sight of
excessive make-up, the sound of a familiar phono-
graph record. On the one hand these may be
highly individualized symbols, operating uniquely
on a person as a result of some configurationof his
own past experiences. On the other hand, stereo-
types are often evoked by verbal symbols: a
whore, an angel of mercy, a Sunday school teacher,
a housewife. To the layman, these verbal symbols
mobilize a complex of ideas and images in much the
same manner that a sound concept does for the
scientist. Strong feelings about issues, personal
values, attitudes, motives, etc., when internalized
by an individual, become condensed into some
sort of stereotyped shorthand reference. The social
scientist, who participates in or otherwise under-
stands the subtleties of a culture, can learn to
identify these stereotypes and the verbal folk-
symbols which evoke them. Once understood,
these stereotypes can be exploited for research
purposes.'
* The research used for illustrative purposes in this
paper was made possible by a grant to Community
Studies, Inc., from the American Nurses' Association.
I am especially indebted to my colleagues Howard S.
Becker, Dan C. Lortie, Thomas A. McPartland, Peter
Kong-ming New, Warren A. Peterson, and Julius Roth
for their constructive criticisms of this paper in an
earlier form.
I For a penetrating analysis of the nature of stereo-
types see Maurice N. Richter, Jr., "The Conceptual
Mechanism of Stereotyping," American SociologicaZ
Review, 21 (October 1956), pp. 568-571. An example of
a rewarding functional analysis of a stereotype is pro-
vided by Alvin W. Gouldner, "Red Tape as a Social
55
"rights and duties." We have done so in a manner
which, we expect, will lend itself to empirical
study. We have not concerned ourselves with the
methodological aspects involved in the implemen-
tation and testing of the ideas presented. This
must await subsequent work.
THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF OBJECTIVITY, BIAS,
AND LOADED QUESTIONS
The possibility of such exploitation is grudgingly
acknowledged by some of the better texts on
methodology, but only after careful and detailed
instruction concerning the efficacy of "objectivity"
and freedom from "bias." Such acknowledgments
may be made parenthetically:
Is the wording biased? Is it emotionally loaded or
slanted toward a particularkind of answer?Does it
employ stereotypes?Does it contain prestige-carrying
names?Does it employ superlativeterms which push
the answerone way or the other?(If such elementsof
bias are present, are they there intentionally-and
does the researchpurposejustify theirinclusion?)2
The expected answer to the rhetorical questions
up to the parenthesisis an emphatic "no." But it is
the parenthetical question which will be em-
phasized in the present paper; it implies a "yes"
answer and when such an answer can be given then
a "yes" answer becomes permissible for all the
preceding questions. If not parenthetical, the
grudging acknowledgment may be made by foot-
note. For example, after stringent warnings against
"leading questions" in his text, one author buries
this statement in just such a manner: "Leading
questions may, of course, have value if they are
Problem," in Robert K. Merton et at. (eds.), Reader in
Bureaucarcy (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1952), pp.
410-418.
2 Arthur Kornhauser, "Constructing Questionnaires
and Interview Schedules," in Marie Jahoda, Morton
Deutsch, and Stuart Cook (eds.), Research Methods in
Social Relations, Part II, Selected Techniques (New
York: The Dryden Press, 1951), p. 448.
56 SOCIAL FORCES
asked deliberately and the results are treated
accordingly."3
The acknowledgment may be neither paren-
thetical nor in a footnote; it may come as a con-
cession: "A 'loaded' question is not necessarily
undesirable and often has a real place in the
questionnaire. The problem is to avoid loading if
one is looking for an undistorted response."4
However, if one is looking for a distorted response,
then loading becomes an advantageous methodo-
logical device. Because stereotypes are by definition
distortions, it should be apparent that purposeful
distortion is necessary in the identification of
stereotypical images. A final form of grudging
acknowledgment of the possibility of research
value in stereotypes comes in the form of an
afterthought: "Is the question content biased or
loaded in one direction-without accompanying
questions to balance the emphasis?"5In the dis-
cussion which follows it will be seen that when a
careful effort is made to maintain just such a
balance in bias or loading, the results can be both
reliable and valid.
Rather than bemoan popular stereotyping and
attempt by complicated means to circumvent it,
the phenomenon can be exploited as an entree to
the feelings, attitudes, images, and latent re-
sponses, obscured within the respondent. In a
sense, the principle is the same as that employed in
the use of psychological projective tests, and, like
projective devices, the common stereotype can be
especially useful in research concerned with self-
conceptions and conceptions of others. In the latter
case, if the symbols which evoke the stereotype of
the relevant "others" can be identified, then the
respondent's attitudes toward and images of those
others can be determined. As Litwak has so
clearly demonstrated, "The purpose of the in-
vestigator defines the bias."6 No question is ever
inherently biased. As a result of his arguments,
Litwak concludes that, "No longer do we say a
given type of question is 'good' or 'bad.' The
search for the 'perfect' question which is not
loaded, double-barreled, or vague becomes trivial
I George A Lungberg, Social Research (New York:
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1942), p. 193, n. 11.
4 Leon Festinger and Daniel Katz, Research Methiods
in the Behavioral Sciences (New York: The Dryden
Press, 1952), p. 347 (italics mine).
5 Kornhauser, op. cit., p. 440.
6 Eugene Litwak, "A Classification of Biased Ques-
tions," American Journal of Sociology, 62 (September
1956), pp. 182-186.
under this new formulation." Among other things,
Litwak now asks "For what purpose is each of
these questions useful?"
AN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF PURPOSEFUL BIAS
As an example of how such a process works when
applied empirically, we will examine a study, the
purpose of which was to learn something of the
nature of public images of the nurse.7 Differences
in evaluations of nurses and nursing by different
publics within a metropolitan area were to be de-
termined quantitatively (by means of a scaling
device) and interpreted with the aid of qualitative
analysis of responses to an open-ended question at
the end of the interview. A probability sample of
households in the metropolitan area, in conjunction
with a random sample of persons 18 years of age
and over within the households, resulted in nearly
one thousand complete, personally administered
interviews."
On the basis of informal conversations about
nurses, with people at bus stops, parties, cafeterias,
bars, and the like, and more formal interviews with
such groups as unemployed laborers loitering
around their union hall and Junior League ladies
at their monthly meeting, the investigators
familiarized themselves with the way in which
people talk about nurses. It was determined that
there were four recurrent themes in the evaluative
comments about nurses; these themes were em-
ployed as the major components of an evaluative
scale which was designed to reveal differentials in
public images of the nurse. In brief, these four
components are as follows:
(1) A moral evaluiation,e.g., "Nursesare easy makes,"
or "Theyare abovereproachand remindme of [Catho-
lic] sisters; they are like angels in their white uni-
forms."
(2) A social-class evaluation, e.g., "They come from
deprived backgrounds-not very good homes-and
can't affordto go to college,"or "Nursesare a better
class of people who have had good upbringingand
know how to talk to people."
7 Public Images of the Nurse, Part II of A Study of the
Registered Nurse in a Metropolitan Community
(Kansas City, Mo.: Community Studies, Inc., August
1955).
8 The size of the selected sample was 1,200 individuals
with an anticipated loss of approximately 20 percent.
Actual loss was 20.2 percent (the refusal rate was 11.3
percent; the remaining 8.9 percent loss is attributable
to such factors as vacant dwellings and addresses
which could not be located).
 THE STEREOTYPE AS A RESEARCH TOOL 57

(3) Evaluations based on self- or family-identification,into selecting one of several value-laden cate-
e.g., "I thinkthat any womanwho triescan findbetter gories. Resistance appeared most frequently
work than that; I certainlywouldn't choose to be a among the best educated and the most poorly
nurse,"or "Thereis nothingI would rathersee than educated groups, although, for the latter group,
to have my daughtergrowup to be a nurse." "resistance" may not be an accurate description.
(4) Evaluative comparisons wuithother women's occupa- The most poorly educated group seemed not so
tions, e.g., "Teachingis a much better job than being much to resist stereotyping as to be unaccustomed
a nurse,"or "Nurseshave made somethingof them- to thought processes involving generalization and
selves;they aren'tsatisfiedwith just clerkingin a store conceptualization. They were unable to cope with
or beingan officeflunkyor somethinglike that." the categories provided; the better educated group
Four arbitraryscales were devised to elicit value- appeared unwilling to do so.10The reaction of some
laden stereotypes of the nurse.9 To get at the respondents who complained that the questions
moral evaluation we asked, "Tell me which of the didn't "make sense" is equally understandable
following you consider closest to your idea of a when we recall that the questions were designed to
nurse? (1) a saint, (2) a Sunday school teacher, (3) get at a stereotype through an associational
a housewife, (4) a waitress, (5) a loose woman." pattern-to trigger a sequence of ideas which
The social-class dimension was included by asking: would lead to the revelation of the respondent's
"Imagine that you could say all Americans are subjective image; the fact that he does not under-
upper class, middle class, or lower class. Tell me stand the purpose of a question may result in its
where you would put most nurses?" The five apparent senselessness to him. Although this
answers provided ranged from (1) upper class to could be avoided by asking only survey-type
(5) lower class. The self- or family-identification questions with an obvious purpose, students of
dimension was obtained by supplying the familiar attitude and opinion are learning that it is not
range of alternatives from (1) I would be very always advantageous for a respondent to be aware
happy, to (5) I would strongly disapprove, for the of their purposes. Experiences with such pro-
question, "If you had a daughter, which one of jective devices as Rorschach, T.A.T., sentence
these most closely approaches the way you would completion, and word-association tests (none of
feel about her being a nurse?" An evaluative com- which "make sense" to the respondents), indicate
parison with other women's occupations was in- that the richest and most meaningful results may
cluded in the following form: "Imagine that you be derived from the application of more subtle
are going to work very close to a person for several tactics.
years. You do not know anything about the We asked "leading" questions and we asked
person except that you have been given a list "loaded" questions, because we were seeking
which tells you the person's past occupation. You neither superficial information nor to test the re-
must select one with only this knowledge. Which spondent's knowledge. We literally desired to
one type would you select to work around?" The "lead" the respondent into revealing his "loaded"
alternative responses are (1) a private secretary to feelings, rather than to obtain simpering cliches or
an executive, (2) a saleslady in a department permit devious evasions into the realm of "don't
know." We asked "what do you feel?" not "what
store, (3) a nurse in a doctor's office, (4) a lady
do you know?" In spite of scattered resistance, a
taxicab driver.
There is no "out" provided for any of these vast majority of the respondents were able to select
questions by a "don't know" alternative. Either one response over the others and in doing so, re-
the respondentanswers the question or he does not. vealed something of their own value systems.
It is true that some people resented being pushed AN EMPIRICAL TEST
9 The somewhat tenuous assumption that the scale One way to test the proposition that stereotypes
items approximate an equal distance from one another can be employed in this manner is to observe the
was made. The use of Analysis of Variance is of course
dependent on the correctness of that assumption. The 10 For a discussion of the kinds of resistance displayed

only vindication for the assumption lies in the fact that
(as is pointed out below) independent techniques not
requiring such an assumption culminate in results which
closely approximate those obtained by analyzing the
scales.
by a sample of physicians who received this same ques-
tionnaire by mail, see this writer's "Physicians' Reac-
tions to a Mailed Questionnaire: A Study in 'Resisten-
tialism,' " The Public Opinion Quarterly, 20 (Fall
1956), pp. 599-604.
58 SOCIAL FORCES

extent to which the procedure "works" in actual paper, a brief review of findings may interest some
practice. An arbitrary scale is obtained by scoring readers. The analyses revealed that in most in-
each of the four questions described above. Those stances there was a relationship between status per-
four scores were added to provide an over-all index ceptions (regardless of axis) and the images of
of each respondent's evaluation of nurses. The nurses.'3 Thus persons high in the social-class
same four questions were asked in reference to hierarchy perceived nurses as being beneath
teachers and social workers to provide comparative them, and their images were derogatory in con-
data to the nurse-evaluation scores. trast to the respect and admiration expressed by
If it be granted that age, sex, and social-class those low in that hierarchy. Males perceived nurs-
groups contain within themselves some of the ing to be a female type of work and their images
characteristics of subcultures, then it is true that were significantly more derogatory than those of
such groups hold certain values which are different women, who as a group held relatively favorable
from those held by other groups. In other words, images. The two groups which were most negative
young people's values may diverge from those of in their evaluations of nurses were those men who
old people; men's values from those of women; were the fathers of only one daughter and physi-
and upper-classpeople's from those of lower classes. cians as an occupational group.'4 In addition to
It is possible then (although not inevitable) that women and lower-class people, extremely favorable
stereotypes held by these different categories of stereotypes were revealed by those who numbered
people will also vary.1l nurses among their personal acquaintances and
All respondents had rated three occupational those who had experienced professional nursing
groups (nurses, teachers, and social workers) and care. Although some doubt remains as to the
their scores were classified according to age, sex, importance of age, the tendency is for older people
and social class.12 The Analysis of Variance test of to hold more favorable stereotypes of nurses than
homogeneity was then applied. In brief, this test younger ones. Rural-urban origins appeared to
measures the extent to which the scores grouped have no effect on the public images.
within a cell are more like each other than they are Although the preliminary Analysis of Variance
like scores grouped in other cells. If the variance revealed a significant amount of variance attribut-
within the cells is significantly less than the vari- able to the differences in rating the three occupa-
ance among the cells, we can assume that the tions, further analysis indicated that this was due
system of classification is logical in so far as it almost entirely to the low ratings given to social
isolates homogeneous groups of scores from other workers. That occupational group was evaluated
and different homogeneous groups. Using the F significantly poorer than both teachers and nurses.
test of significance it was determined that classi- Teachers rated only slightly higher than nurses.
fication into age-sex-class cells resulted in homo-
THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY
geneity at the one percent level. Further variance
analysis revealed differences in evaluation scores It has been demonstrated that people who were
between the sexes and among social-class groups- similar to one another provided evaluation scores
both at the one percent level of significance. In which were similar to one another and which were
addition, a significant amount of variance in the different from those provided by different kinds of
scores was found to be attributable to differences people. There is, then, evidence concerning the
among the ratings of the three occupations, i.e., reliability of responses to loaded questions. Be-
similar groups of people manifested significant 13 For a full report of the study, the reader is referred

shifts in their stereotypes as the occupational to Piblic Images of the Niurse, op. cit.
referent was changed from nurse, to teacher, to 14 A sample of physicians was drawn from the four

social worker. county medical directories. Unlike the larger sample,

Although tangential to the major purpose of this each member of which was contacted and interviewed
personally, the physicians received their questionnaire
is also possible that in some respects they may
11 It in the mail. Important variations appeared within the
coincide. There are some kinds of stereotypes which are physician sample. These are discussed in The Evalua-
nearly universal in our society, regardless of sub-cul- tion of Nurses by Male Physicians, Part I of A Study of
tural identifications within the society. the Registered Nurse in a Metropolitan Community
12The Warner ISC was the index used to approximate (Kansas City, Mo.: Community Studies, Inc., March
class position. 1955).
 THE STEREOTYPE AS A RESEARCH TOOL
cause the scores are derived from questions which
were designed to elicit stereotypes, we might
assume that the differences in scores reflect dif-
ferences in stereotypes. The validity of this
assumption is supported by evidence from four
independence sources.
(1) The main reason for devising such a round-
about means of measuring how people evaluate
nurses, rather than simply asking them, was the
assumption that some respondents tend to want to
cooperate with the interviewer-to give "good"
answers. Therefore, there would be some who,
although they would not make explicit negative or
derogatory statements about nurses, would reflect
negative or derogatory attitudes in their index
scores. This would appear to be true in so far as
index scores tend to be less positive than state-
ments made in response to the open-ended ques-
tion, "How do you think nurses, as a whole, are
different from most other women?" Although that
question was designed to provide meaning and
content to the quantitative scores,'5it also served
as a validating instrument for those scores.
(2) Although negative comments could not be
expected to occur as frequently as negative index
scores, nevertheless, there should be a high degree
of relationship between the scores and the com-
ments. The comments of extreme scorers (both
high and low) were analyzed in order to test this
relationship. Those comments (responses to the
open-ended question) were classified as "favor-
able," "neutral," or "unfavorable."'6 Typical
favorable comments are: "I think they set an
example for the rest of us in patience and self-
sacrifice,"and "People look up to nurses; they are
wonderful people." Examples of neutral comments
include, "I don't think there is any difference
between nurses and other women," and "Nurses
have special training to do nursing." Unfavorable
15 The interviewers were instructed to probe for up to
fifteen minutes on this question, which appeared at the
end of the interview. The responses provided clues as to
why people held favorable or unfavorable images of the
nurse.
16 The theoretical range of the index is from 40 to
190. Scores actually ranged from 40 (most favorable)
to 150 (most unfavorable). Thirty respondents gave
nurses a score of 40. These are our "most favorable"
extreme. In order to obtain an equivalent sized group
for the "most unfavorable" extreme, it was necessary
to include all those who had rated nurses from 120-150.
There were 38 of these, 26 of whom rated nurses at
120.
59
comments may be illustrated by, "They get hard-
ened to life and to people," "They sure like to love
those doctors in the dark; they love the doctors
and neglect the patients," "They are a hardboiled
lot," and "Some of them are rough, tough, and
ornery loose women." As might be expected, many
of the comments could not be classifiedas favorable
or unfavorable. Nearly half of those with the
extreme favorable index scores gave neutral,
evasive, or inconsistent responses to the open-
ended question, while over half of those with
unfavorable index scores gave those kinds of re-
sponses. The important point, in terms of valida-
tion, is that almost five times as many respondents
in the unfavorable index group made unfavorable
or derogatory comments about nurses as did those
in the favorable index group. At the other extreme,
47 percent of the favorable scorers had clearly
favorable things to say about nurses (most of the
remainder being neutral), while only 24 percent
of the unfavorable extreme scorers made favorable
comments about nurses. The Chi-square of the
distribution is significant at the .05 level, indicating
that there is a significant relationship between the
kinds of things people say about nurses and the
scores they achieve in rating nurses on the occupa-
tional evaluation index.
(3) Another independent check on the validity
of the index is based on responses to a question not
used in computing the index. That question asks
the respondent to choose from among several
alternatives the one combination of traits which
he thinks best describes the way nurses are (not
should be). Choices involving two of those al-
ternatives are revealing for the present purposes:
one of these is "kind and sympathetic" and the
other is "blundering and incompetent." If it will
be granted that persons who choose to describe
nurses as "kind and sympathetic" are favorably
evaluating them while those who select "blunder-
ing and incompetent" are likely to be inclined to an
unfavorable evaluation, it can be expected that
there will be a real difference in the index scores
provided by these two groups. Four hundred and
thirty-two respondents selected "kind and sympa-
thetic"; their mean index score was 76. Only 37
people chose "blundering and incompetent";
their mean index was 84 (the lower the index, the
more favorable the evaluation). The t test shows
the differencebetween these means is significant at
the five percent level. Again there is evidence that
people whose index scores are unfavorable, are
60 SOCIAL FORCES

more likely to be those who make unfavorable
comments about nurses-an indication that the
index is measuringwhat it is intended to.
(4) Finally, the rank order of the three occupa-
tions (nursing, teaching, and social work) accord-
ing to their mean index scores is the same as the
rank order of percentages of respondents who
checked "blundering and incompetent" for each
occupation. The more favorable the index, the
smaller the percentage of respondents. Each of
these four validity checks provides a bit of evidence
which, in combination, provide a high degree of
confidence that the index was, as intended, a re-
flection of stereotypical value judgments.
CONCLUSIONS
There is, then, not only a theoretical basis for the
notion that stereotypes can be exploited as re-
search tools, but also a pragmatic basis: It works.
Value-laden, leading, loaded questions, allowing
an extremely limited range of responses, did evoke
stereotypical answers which reflected common
images held by certain segments or publics within
a metropolitan population. As a result, it was
possible to determine the relative evaluations of an
occupational group held by men, by women, by old
people and youngsters, and by persons of different
socio-economic strata.'7 Once these basic distinc-
17 The data were also reclassified and tested accord-
tions were made, it was then possible to analyze
the content and meaning of the stereotypes by
examining responses to the open-ended question.
We need only turn to W. I. Thomas to grasp the
implications of such stereotypes. They reflect
definitions of the situation and, to the extent that
specific segments in our society define an occupa-
tional group in a certain manner, those definitions,
being real to the definers-become real in terms of
their overt behavior in relation to the members of
that occupational group. In the particular case
used as an example in this paper, there are im-
mediate practical implications to the nursing pro-
fession concerning such problems as recruitment
and professional education. As Merton so convinc-
ingly stated in his "Self-Fulfilling Prophesy,"'8
educational and public relationscampaignsare rela-
tively sterile measures as comparedwith the effec-
tiveness of organizational or structural changes
which can be effected on the basis of a clear under-
standing of the ways in which the situation is de-
fined. The self-fulfilling prophecy can be revised
when such knowledge is available.
to those who had not and those who numbered nurses
among their personal friends as compared to those who
did not. Respondents who were the parents of only one
daughter were compared with those who had no
daughters and those with more than one daughter.
18 Robert K. Merton, "The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy"

ing to more specifically relevant criteria, e.g., those who in R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure
had experienced professional nursing care as compared (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1949), pp. 179-195.

The SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL will offer in 1958-59 to permanent residents of the United
States or Canada the following fellowships and grants: RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS IN ALL SOCIAL SCIENCE
FIELDS and special Fellowships for Completion of Doctoral Dissertations in Social Sciences, and Fellowships in
Political Theory and Legal Philosophy (for Ph.D. candidates who have fulfilled all requirements except the dis-
sertation, and for recent recipients of the Ph.D. degree); FACULTY RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS for half-time research
for a three-year term; GRANTS-IN-AID OF RESEARCH, FACULTY RESEARCH GRANTS, and AUXILIARY RESEARCH
AWARDS for independent research by mature social scientists; GRANTS FOR RESEARCH IN SPECIALIZED FIELDS
available to mature social scientists who are not candidates for degrees (American Governmental Affairs, Senior
Research Awards; American Governmental Processes; Near and Middle East; Slavic and East European Studies
[in social sciences and humanities]); INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL GRANTS to assist attendance by social scientists
resident in the United States at the 1958-59 meetings of: Institut International de Finances Publiques, Inter-
American Society of Psychology, International Congress of the History of Science, International Institute of Ad-
ministrative Sciences, International Sociological Association, International Union for Scientific Study of Popula-
tion; and tentatively of: International Economic Association round table, International Political Science Associa-
tion round table, International Statistical Institute congress; also grants for travel to unspecified international
conferences of Slavic and East European studies.
When requesting application forms it is important to state age, place of permanent residence, academic status,
present position or activity, and vocational aims; and to indicate briefly the purpose for which aid is sought. Cor-
respondence should be addressed to Social Science Research Council Fellowships and Grants, 230 Park Avenue,
New York 17, N. Y.